The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This rule states that powers not dedicated to the federal government belong to the federal government, particularly the people of those states.
October 19, 2010
Growing disconnect between states and federal government?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The legalization of marijuana, immigration reform and health care.
These are just three hot-button examples of how the states and the federal government are increasingly out-of-step with each other.
Starting with California, the Justice Department is vowing to keep prosecuting people who possess marijuana there - even if voters approve a ballot measure that would legalize recreational use of the drug.
Attorney General Eric Holder says the administration "strongly opposes" Proposition 19 and will "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws should the measure pass.
Whether or not you approve of marijuana, California is bankrupt and in desperate need of money. Taxing pot might be a way to raise some cash.
Meanwhile - the federal government is going after states like Arizona, which are trying to do something about illegal immigration since the federal laws go all but unenforced.
The Obama administration is suing Arizona, claiming the state's immigration law is unconstitutional. A federal judge has put some of the most controversial parts of the law on hold... but Arizona's governor Jan Brewer is vowing to take her state's case all the way to the Supreme Court.
And then there's President Obama's signature issue of health care reform. It's been the law of the land for several months, yet dozens of states are now challenging it.
A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit brought by 20 of these states can move forward. He says the states can challenge the constitutionality of the law's requirement for all Americans to buy health insurance.
This article discusses the growing disconnect between state and federal government decisions. Based on the Amendment 10 all decisions not relating to federal responsibilities outlined in the Constitution should be left up to the states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl84x65nnEw
This is a political campaign video discussing state's rights.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment states that even though certain rights may not be listed in the constitution these said rights still exist.
(CNN) -- Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill Tuesday that would have given same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, saying the issue needs to be put to a referendum.
"I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii," Lingle said.
"The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day. It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."
Gay rights group decried Lingle's decision.
"Today was the first time a civil unions bill passed both Houses in Hawaii by solid margins and was on the Governor's desk for signing," Jo-Ann Adams, chair of the GLBT Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, said in a statement. "With such broad support from the legislators, who are the elected officials closest to the public, and the consistent results of the professional polls showing broad support for civil unions as a civil rights issue, we are deeply disappointed that the Governor ignored the will of the people and vetoed the bill. "
Another group, Equality Hawaii, said the fight for equal rights will continue.
"Today is a sad day for the thousands of Hawaii families who remain second class citizens," said Alan Spector, legislative affairs co-chair for Equality Hawaii.
The governor said she understands why supporters of the bill are upset by her decision.
"This is a decision that should not be made by one person sitting in her office or by members of the Majority Party behind closed doors in a legislative caucus, but by all the people of Hawaii behind the curtain of the voting booth," Lingle said in a statement.
"And while some will disagree with my decision to veto this bill, I hope most will agree that the flawed process legislators used does not reflect the dignity this issue deserves, and that a vote by all the people of Hawaii is the best and fairest way to address an issue that elicits such deeply felt emotion by those both for and against."
When the bill passed in April, civil union supporters cheered in the Capitol rotunda. But Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona said at the time lawmakers shouldn't have approved the measure.
"If the legislature wanted to establish the equivalent of same-sex marriage, they should have put it on the ballot for the people to decide," he said then.
Some religious groups had urged the governor to veto the legislation.
"We need you to mount a campaign to flood the governor's office with requests to veto the bill," Larry Silva, Catholic bishop of Honolulu, wrote on the diocese of Honolulu's website at the time.
Five U.S. states and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hawaii would join New Jersey in allowing civil unions.
Three states -- Rhode Island, New York, and Maryland -- recognize same-sex marriages from other states, according to the conference.
California recognizes same-sex marriages performed during six months in 2008 after its Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry and before the passage of Proposition 8, which overturned the court's decision.
This article discusses gay marriage. Some American's believe that gay rights are enumerated rights, therefor the government should not be able to regulate marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscLnn36-yo
This video shows the right to privacy. Privacy is an enumerated right because it is not stated directly in the Constitution.
This amendment states that even though certain rights may not be listed in the constitution these said rights still exist.
(CNN) -- Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill Tuesday that would have given same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, saying the issue needs to be put to a referendum.
"I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii," Lingle said.
"The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day. It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."
Gay rights group decried Lingle's decision.
"Today was the first time a civil unions bill passed both Houses in Hawaii by solid margins and was on the Governor's desk for signing," Jo-Ann Adams, chair of the GLBT Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, said in a statement. "With such broad support from the legislators, who are the elected officials closest to the public, and the consistent results of the professional polls showing broad support for civil unions as a civil rights issue, we are deeply disappointed that the Governor ignored the will of the people and vetoed the bill. "
Another group, Equality Hawaii, said the fight for equal rights will continue.
"Today is a sad day for the thousands of Hawaii families who remain second class citizens," said Alan Spector, legislative affairs co-chair for Equality Hawaii.
The governor said she understands why supporters of the bill are upset by her decision.
"This is a decision that should not be made by one person sitting in her office or by members of the Majority Party behind closed doors in a legislative caucus, but by all the people of Hawaii behind the curtain of the voting booth," Lingle said in a statement.
"And while some will disagree with my decision to veto this bill, I hope most will agree that the flawed process legislators used does not reflect the dignity this issue deserves, and that a vote by all the people of Hawaii is the best and fairest way to address an issue that elicits such deeply felt emotion by those both for and against."
When the bill passed in April, civil union supporters cheered in the Capitol rotunda. But Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona said at the time lawmakers shouldn't have approved the measure.
"If the legislature wanted to establish the equivalent of same-sex marriage, they should have put it on the ballot for the people to decide," he said then.
Some religious groups had urged the governor to veto the legislation.
"We need you to mount a campaign to flood the governor's office with requests to veto the bill," Larry Silva, Catholic bishop of Honolulu, wrote on the diocese of Honolulu's website at the time.
Five U.S. states and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hawaii would join New Jersey in allowing civil unions.
Three states -- Rhode Island, New York, and Maryland -- recognize same-sex marriages from other states, according to the conference.
California recognizes same-sex marriages performed during six months in 2008 after its Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry and before the passage of Proposition 8, which overturned the court's decision.
This article discusses gay marriage. Some American's believe that gay rights are enumerated rights, therefor the government should not be able to regulate marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscLnn36-yo
This video shows the right to privacy. Privacy is an enumerated right because it is not stated directly in the Constitution.
Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This amendment discusses bail. Bail is set so that an accused person will still be liable for showing up for trial, but can take care of other things by spending the time out of jail. It also discusses cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment is an interesting topic because different individuals consider different punishments cruel and unusual.
Psychiatrist: Petit killer has attempted suicide several time
From Michael Christian
Doctor testifies Hayes said he wants to be executed
He says Hayes has been diagnosed with major depression
Hayes was convicted of capital murder in the 2007 home invasion
New Haven, Connecticut (CNN) -- A man convicted of capital murder in a 2007 Connecticut home invasion has attempted suicide several times since his arrest and has said he wants to receive the death penalty, a forensic psychiatrist testified Wednesday.
Steven Hayes, 47, was convicted this month of 16 of the 17 charges against him -- including nine counts of murder and capital murder and four counts of kidnapping -- in the deaths of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley Petit and 11-year-old Michaela Petit.
Prosecutors allege that Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky invaded the Petit home in Cheshire, beat Jennifer Hawke-Petit's husband bloody, strangled Hawke-Petit, set the house afire and tried to flee.
On cross-examination, Dr. Paul Amble said his panel did not address the question of whether the defendant's suicide attempts were sincere. But in his opinion, Hayes was "making decisions that were rational, given his situation" when he said he wanted to receive the death penalty.
"I want to plead guilty to everything now, because I just want it over now," Hayes told an evaluation team, the assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine testified to a jury considering whether to sentence Steven Hayes to death.
Hayes described a plan to "look like a monster" to the jury, expressing no remorse, in an attempt to move the jurors to sentence him to death, Amble wrote in his evaluation of the defendant.
In March, Hayes told a psychologist that he no longer wanted to commit suicide "but intended to let the state do it," Amble said.
Judge Jon Blue had asked Amble to evaluate Hayes to determine whether he was competent to stand trial.
Hayes "described five overdose attempts" that he felt Connecticut corrections staff was aware of, Amble said.
The last such attempt came January 31, when Hayes "took a fairly large amount of thorazine ... nearly twice the lethal limit," Amble said. The incident forced a delay in Hayes' trial, which had been set for February 1.
Thorazine is an antipsychotic medication that can also be prescribed to treat anxiety, as it was in Hayes' case.
Asked to describe his mood on a scale of zero to 10, Hayes ranked it at zero and described symptoms of helplessness and hopelessness since his arrest shortly after the killings, Amble testified. He said Hayes told him he had tried to strangle himself with a sock but failed because he couldn't tighten it enough to cut off circulation.
Hayes told his evaluators that he had considered other ways to end his life, such as "putting my head in the toilet and doing a back flip" to break his neck, but opted against doing so out of fear that he might only paralyze or otherwise injure himself, according to the evaluation carried out by Amble.
Hayes told the evaluation team in March that "he wanted to essentially encourage the jury to vote in favor of the death penalty ... perhaps by taking the stand and looking like he has no remorse," Amble said. "His desire was to actively seek the death penalty."
He said Hayes has lost more than 60 pounds since his arrest and complained of not sleeping well and of nightmares.
His psychiatrist in prison has diagnosed him with "adjustment disorder" and "major depression," Amble said.
Prosecutor Michael Dearington asked Amble whether Hayes truly wanted to be executed. "I don't know," the doctor said. "I'm not here to say I can exactly divine his thoughts, only what he said."
Komisarjevsky is to be tried separately, but on Tuesday, a court clerk read from Komisarjevsky's writings providing graphic descriptions of the incident. "I am what I am; I make no excuses," Komisarjevsky wrote. "I'm a criminal with a criminal mind."
But he also appeared to express remorse, at one point writing, "Michaela, Haley and Jennifer, forgive me; I am damned. ... My forthcoming death sentence will be an action of mercy."
Police testified that in the 2007 home invasion, Hayes and Komisarjevsky found evidence of a bank account containing $20,000 to $30,000 and forced Hawke-Petit to go to a bank in the morning and withdraw money from the account. Prosecutors said Hayes took her to the bank while Komisarjevsky stayed behind.
When Hayes and Hawke-Petit returned with the money, officials said, the two men set the home afire and fled. Inside the home, authorities said, Hawke-Petit, 48, was found raped and strangled. Her two daughters, one of whom had been sexually assaulted, died of smoke inhalation. Petit, the sole survivor, escaped to a neighbor's home.
Amble was the only witness to testify on Wednesday, and no further testimony is scheduled until Monday, after the judge and attorneys spend the rest of this week working on jury instructions.
This article discusses Hayes, a criminal wanting to recieve the death penatly. Many consider the death pentalty to be cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hqEEyAPdtM
This is a news clip of a criminal being sentenced to death.
This amendment discusses bail. Bail is set so that an accused person will still be liable for showing up for trial, but can take care of other things by spending the time out of jail. It also discusses cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment is an interesting topic because different individuals consider different punishments cruel and unusual.
Psychiatrist: Petit killer has attempted suicide several time
From Michael Christian
Doctor testifies Hayes said he wants to be executed
He says Hayes has been diagnosed with major depression
Hayes was convicted of capital murder in the 2007 home invasion
New Haven, Connecticut (CNN) -- A man convicted of capital murder in a 2007 Connecticut home invasion has attempted suicide several times since his arrest and has said he wants to receive the death penalty, a forensic psychiatrist testified Wednesday.
Steven Hayes, 47, was convicted this month of 16 of the 17 charges against him -- including nine counts of murder and capital murder and four counts of kidnapping -- in the deaths of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley Petit and 11-year-old Michaela Petit.
Prosecutors allege that Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky invaded the Petit home in Cheshire, beat Jennifer Hawke-Petit's husband bloody, strangled Hawke-Petit, set the house afire and tried to flee.
On cross-examination, Dr. Paul Amble said his panel did not address the question of whether the defendant's suicide attempts were sincere. But in his opinion, Hayes was "making decisions that were rational, given his situation" when he said he wanted to receive the death penalty.
"I want to plead guilty to everything now, because I just want it over now," Hayes told an evaluation team, the assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine testified to a jury considering whether to sentence Steven Hayes to death.
Hayes described a plan to "look like a monster" to the jury, expressing no remorse, in an attempt to move the jurors to sentence him to death, Amble wrote in his evaluation of the defendant.
In March, Hayes told a psychologist that he no longer wanted to commit suicide "but intended to let the state do it," Amble said.
Judge Jon Blue had asked Amble to evaluate Hayes to determine whether he was competent to stand trial.
Hayes "described five overdose attempts" that he felt Connecticut corrections staff was aware of, Amble said.
The last such attempt came January 31, when Hayes "took a fairly large amount of thorazine ... nearly twice the lethal limit," Amble said. The incident forced a delay in Hayes' trial, which had been set for February 1.
Thorazine is an antipsychotic medication that can also be prescribed to treat anxiety, as it was in Hayes' case.
Asked to describe his mood on a scale of zero to 10, Hayes ranked it at zero and described symptoms of helplessness and hopelessness since his arrest shortly after the killings, Amble testified. He said Hayes told him he had tried to strangle himself with a sock but failed because he couldn't tighten it enough to cut off circulation.
Hayes told his evaluators that he had considered other ways to end his life, such as "putting my head in the toilet and doing a back flip" to break his neck, but opted against doing so out of fear that he might only paralyze or otherwise injure himself, according to the evaluation carried out by Amble.
Hayes told the evaluation team in March that "he wanted to essentially encourage the jury to vote in favor of the death penalty ... perhaps by taking the stand and looking like he has no remorse," Amble said. "His desire was to actively seek the death penalty."
He said Hayes has lost more than 60 pounds since his arrest and complained of not sleeping well and of nightmares.
His psychiatrist in prison has diagnosed him with "adjustment disorder" and "major depression," Amble said.
Prosecutor Michael Dearington asked Amble whether Hayes truly wanted to be executed. "I don't know," the doctor said. "I'm not here to say I can exactly divine his thoughts, only what he said."
Komisarjevsky is to be tried separately, but on Tuesday, a court clerk read from Komisarjevsky's writings providing graphic descriptions of the incident. "I am what I am; I make no excuses," Komisarjevsky wrote. "I'm a criminal with a criminal mind."
But he also appeared to express remorse, at one point writing, "Michaela, Haley and Jennifer, forgive me; I am damned. ... My forthcoming death sentence will be an action of mercy."
Police testified that in the 2007 home invasion, Hayes and Komisarjevsky found evidence of a bank account containing $20,000 to $30,000 and forced Hawke-Petit to go to a bank in the morning and withdraw money from the account. Prosecutors said Hayes took her to the bank while Komisarjevsky stayed behind.
When Hayes and Hawke-Petit returned with the money, officials said, the two men set the home afire and fled. Inside the home, authorities said, Hawke-Petit, 48, was found raped and strangled. Her two daughters, one of whom had been sexually assaulted, died of smoke inhalation. Petit, the sole survivor, escaped to a neighbor's home.
Amble was the only witness to testify on Wednesday, and no further testimony is scheduled until Monday, after the judge and attorneys spend the rest of this week working on jury instructions.
This article discusses Hayes, a criminal wanting to recieve the death penatly. Many consider the death pentalty to be cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hqEEyAPdtM
This is a news clip of a criminal being sentenced to death.
Amendment 7
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This amendment guarentees that citizens money disputes will be seen in American court. Twenty dollars was a lot of money when the constitution was written. Now only cases with controvery of $1500 will be seen by a jury. The other cases are handled in small claims court.
Preacher once fought for civil rights
Westminster, Maryland (CNN) -- Matthew Snyder's funeral was to be a private affair, with family and friends gathering at a Catholic church to mourn the 20-year-old Marine who died a hero in Iraq, serving his country. But Matt's father says his grief was compounded by anger and helplessness because of about a dozen unwanted visitors, a fringe group standing at the center of a constitutional showdown.
"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human being," Albert Snyder told CNN. "I mean, it was inhuman."
He speaks of members of a small Kansas church who have gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members, denouncing homosexuality. Both sides will now receive a Supreme Court hearing over their competing constitutional rights. Oral arguments are Wednesday morning, with a final ruling some months away.
At issue is a balancing test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech and religious expression rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the protests are conducted. Here, venue and context will be key to the justices' decision -- whether funerals warrant a greater zone of privacy, and whether the "speech" in this case was specifically aimed at a private citizens like the Snyder family.
'Everyone deserves to be buried with dignity'
U.S. Supreme Court
Fred Phelps
Matt Snyder always wanted to be a solider, his father said. His son enlisted just after high school, he said, and enjoyed the military life: "I think Matt wanted to be in a job where he could help people and serve that purpose."
The young lance corporal died from a noncombat-related vehicle accident in Iraq's Anbar province March 3, 2006. Albert Snyder called it the worst day of his life. The funeral was held at St. John Catholic Church in this northern Maryland town.
Two days before, members of the Westboro Baptist Church had advertised its intent to appear and picket. That prompted a heavy police presence at the March 10 funeral, including a command center and SWAT team.
Westboro Baptist Church members were confined to a pre-assigned space along a public road, some distance from the church building. The funeral procession was rerouted to avoid driving directly past the protesters. The hecklers carried signs that varied from the general to the personal: "God Hates America," Priests Rape Boys," but also "You're Going to Hell," and "God Hates You," which the Snyder family claimed was directed at their son, who was not gay.
The church patriarch Fred Phelps led the protest. "That's what I preach. They're either fags or f---ing enablers. Take your choice, each one is going to hell." Another church member said, "We're here to tell them that they sent their son to hell."
There were no direct confrontations and no arrests of the church members.
Albert Snyder then sued, claiming defamation and invasion of privacy. He says he became violently ill when he saw an online "manifesto" the Westboro Baptist Church posted after that protest. In it, the Phelps family said Albert Snyder and his wife raised Matthew "for the devil" and that "God killed Matthew so His servants would have an opportunity to preach His words" at other venues across Maryland.
"They are very sick individuals," said Snyder. "It comes down to dignity. No one should be buried with what the Phelps did. Everyone deserves to be buried with dignity."
A jury agreed and awarded Snyder's family $2.9 million in compensatory damages, plus $8 million in punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intrusion upon seclusion, among other finding. Those total damages were later reduced to $5 million. It was the nation's first civil suit against the church over the protests.
Albert Snyder testified he suffered severe physical and emotional distress, but church members argued their broader message was aimed at the unspecified actions of the military and those who serve in it.
A federal appeals court agreed, concluding the signs and shouts did not directly refer to the lance corporal, and were therefore protected speech on issues of national debate. That court called the Kansas church's actions "rhetorical hyperbole."
Now the Supreme Court is poised to offer the final word.
Founder's daughter dismisses effort to silence church
Westboro is a mostly family affair, with the Phelps family making up most of the 75 or so congregants. They own a compound of houses in Topeka, Kansas, where they live and conduct services.
The pastor has 13 children, at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."
The church, founded in 1955 and led by Phelps, is not affiliated with any known Baptist associations but has been officially registered as a religious institution. Its members believe God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality," through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country hundreds of times, shouting their unique message.
Before they began protesting the funerals of soldiers, church members brought their colorful "God hates fags" signs to the funerals of gay men who died of AIDS or AIDS-related illnesses. Church members also picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, the victim of an anti-gay beating and one of those for whom the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was named.
They also show up at football games, music concerts, Jewish institutions, the Holocaust Museum in Washington, state legislatures and courthouses. They plan to picket outside the Supreme Court at Wednesday's oral arguments in the dispute.
Westboro leaders openly admit they seek to shock and provoke with their message.
"WBC's speech is in a format showing it is religious commentary," said church members in their brief to the Supreme Court. "WBC's speech was public-issue speech, highly disliked, and needing protection. A massive public discussion is under way in this nation -- about the wars; the soldiers; their deaths; and their funerals. Everyone is using the occasion of soldiers' deaths to comment, about the policies of this nation."
Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of the church's founder and a leader of the group, dismissed Snyder's efforts to silence the church. "I don't care what they want to," she said in a 2006 CNN interview. "What they want to do is litigate our religious doctrine. Well, you don't do that in America."
Free speech or harassment?
The Supreme Court has never addressed the specific issue of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services" as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased. But the high court has recognized the state's interest in protecting people from unwanted protests or communications while in their homes.
In a larger context, the justices will be asked to address how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict the speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting. Various jurisdictions across the nation have responded to the protests with varying levels of control over the Westboro church protesters.
In a separate appeal, the high court last year temporarily blocked Missouri's effort to enforce a specific law aimed at the church. Phelps, his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of an Army soldier in St. Joseph, Missouri. State lawmakers later passed the "Spc. Edward Lee Myers Law," criminalizing picketing "in front or about" a funeral location or procession. That issue could reach the Supreme Court in the next year or two.
Snyder's attorney, Sean Summers, says there would be no constitutional quandary if the Phelps picketed the state capitol or in a public park. But he says this is different. "When they protest outside a private funeral, they're not trying to advocate for or against a particular position," he told CNN. "All they're doing is harassing a family so they can hijack someone else's private event."
The grieving father remains angry at the Phelps and said he is determined to continue the fight.
"They are using the First Amendment as a sword and a shield. My son and thousands like him did not put their lives on the line so that someone could abuse the Constitution like this," he said. "Men and women have died for this right and to have it abused and spit on -- it's not free speech. This fight has never been about free speech to me, it's about harassment."
CNN's Kate Bolduan contributed to this report.
This article discusses a case in which the civil settlement was millions of dollars. This case far exceeds the $1500 minimum so it was seen by a jury.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmoiVQehlyQ
This video discusses the large lawsuit being filed against BP because of the oil spill earlier this year.
This amendment guarentees that citizens money disputes will be seen in American court. Twenty dollars was a lot of money when the constitution was written. Now only cases with controvery of $1500 will be seen by a jury. The other cases are handled in small claims court.
Preacher once fought for civil rights
Westminster, Maryland (CNN) -- Matthew Snyder's funeral was to be a private affair, with family and friends gathering at a Catholic church to mourn the 20-year-old Marine who died a hero in Iraq, serving his country. But Matt's father says his grief was compounded by anger and helplessness because of about a dozen unwanted visitors, a fringe group standing at the center of a constitutional showdown.
"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human being," Albert Snyder told CNN. "I mean, it was inhuman."
He speaks of members of a small Kansas church who have gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members, denouncing homosexuality. Both sides will now receive a Supreme Court hearing over their competing constitutional rights. Oral arguments are Wednesday morning, with a final ruling some months away.
At issue is a balancing test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech and religious expression rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the protests are conducted. Here, venue and context will be key to the justices' decision -- whether funerals warrant a greater zone of privacy, and whether the "speech" in this case was specifically aimed at a private citizens like the Snyder family.
'Everyone deserves to be buried with dignity'
U.S. Supreme Court
Fred Phelps
Matt Snyder always wanted to be a solider, his father said. His son enlisted just after high school, he said, and enjoyed the military life: "I think Matt wanted to be in a job where he could help people and serve that purpose."
The young lance corporal died from a noncombat-related vehicle accident in Iraq's Anbar province March 3, 2006. Albert Snyder called it the worst day of his life. The funeral was held at St. John Catholic Church in this northern Maryland town.
Two days before, members of the Westboro Baptist Church had advertised its intent to appear and picket. That prompted a heavy police presence at the March 10 funeral, including a command center and SWAT team.
Westboro Baptist Church members were confined to a pre-assigned space along a public road, some distance from the church building. The funeral procession was rerouted to avoid driving directly past the protesters. The hecklers carried signs that varied from the general to the personal: "God Hates America," Priests Rape Boys," but also "You're Going to Hell," and "God Hates You," which the Snyder family claimed was directed at their son, who was not gay.
The church patriarch Fred Phelps led the protest. "That's what I preach. They're either fags or f---ing enablers. Take your choice, each one is going to hell." Another church member said, "We're here to tell them that they sent their son to hell."
There were no direct confrontations and no arrests of the church members.
Albert Snyder then sued, claiming defamation and invasion of privacy. He says he became violently ill when he saw an online "manifesto" the Westboro Baptist Church posted after that protest. In it, the Phelps family said Albert Snyder and his wife raised Matthew "for the devil" and that "God killed Matthew so His servants would have an opportunity to preach His words" at other venues across Maryland.
"They are very sick individuals," said Snyder. "It comes down to dignity. No one should be buried with what the Phelps did. Everyone deserves to be buried with dignity."
A jury agreed and awarded Snyder's family $2.9 million in compensatory damages, plus $8 million in punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intrusion upon seclusion, among other finding. Those total damages were later reduced to $5 million. It was the nation's first civil suit against the church over the protests.
Albert Snyder testified he suffered severe physical and emotional distress, but church members argued their broader message was aimed at the unspecified actions of the military and those who serve in it.
A federal appeals court agreed, concluding the signs and shouts did not directly refer to the lance corporal, and were therefore protected speech on issues of national debate. That court called the Kansas church's actions "rhetorical hyperbole."
Now the Supreme Court is poised to offer the final word.
Founder's daughter dismisses effort to silence church
Westboro is a mostly family affair, with the Phelps family making up most of the 75 or so congregants. They own a compound of houses in Topeka, Kansas, where they live and conduct services.
The pastor has 13 children, at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."
The church, founded in 1955 and led by Phelps, is not affiliated with any known Baptist associations but has been officially registered as a religious institution. Its members believe God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality," through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country hundreds of times, shouting their unique message.
Before they began protesting the funerals of soldiers, church members brought their colorful "God hates fags" signs to the funerals of gay men who died of AIDS or AIDS-related illnesses. Church members also picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, the victim of an anti-gay beating and one of those for whom the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was named.
They also show up at football games, music concerts, Jewish institutions, the Holocaust Museum in Washington, state legislatures and courthouses. They plan to picket outside the Supreme Court at Wednesday's oral arguments in the dispute.
Westboro leaders openly admit they seek to shock and provoke with their message.
"WBC's speech is in a format showing it is religious commentary," said church members in their brief to the Supreme Court. "WBC's speech was public-issue speech, highly disliked, and needing protection. A massive public discussion is under way in this nation -- about the wars; the soldiers; their deaths; and their funerals. Everyone is using the occasion of soldiers' deaths to comment, about the policies of this nation."
Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of the church's founder and a leader of the group, dismissed Snyder's efforts to silence the church. "I don't care what they want to," she said in a 2006 CNN interview. "What they want to do is litigate our religious doctrine. Well, you don't do that in America."
Free speech or harassment?
The Supreme Court has never addressed the specific issue of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services" as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased. But the high court has recognized the state's interest in protecting people from unwanted protests or communications while in their homes.
In a larger context, the justices will be asked to address how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict the speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting. Various jurisdictions across the nation have responded to the protests with varying levels of control over the Westboro church protesters.
In a separate appeal, the high court last year temporarily blocked Missouri's effort to enforce a specific law aimed at the church. Phelps, his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of an Army soldier in St. Joseph, Missouri. State lawmakers later passed the "Spc. Edward Lee Myers Law," criminalizing picketing "in front or about" a funeral location or procession. That issue could reach the Supreme Court in the next year or two.
Snyder's attorney, Sean Summers, says there would be no constitutional quandary if the Phelps picketed the state capitol or in a public park. But he says this is different. "When they protest outside a private funeral, they're not trying to advocate for or against a particular position," he told CNN. "All they're doing is harassing a family so they can hijack someone else's private event."
The grieving father remains angry at the Phelps and said he is determined to continue the fight.
"They are using the First Amendment as a sword and a shield. My son and thousands like him did not put their lives on the line so that someone could abuse the Constitution like this," he said. "Men and women have died for this right and to have it abused and spit on -- it's not free speech. This fight has never been about free speech to me, it's about harassment."
CNN's Kate Bolduan contributed to this report.
This article discusses a case in which the civil settlement was millions of dollars. This case far exceeds the $1500 minimum so it was seen by a jury.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmoiVQehlyQ
This video discusses the large lawsuit being filed against BP because of the oil spill earlier this year.
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The sixth amendment if outlines the criminal justice system used in the United States. This amendment grants citizens the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, a trial where the crime was commited, knowledge of the accusation, knowledge of those testifying against the accused, and legal counsel.
October 12, 2010
"Meat Cleaver" trial set to begin
New York, NY – In the case of New York vs. David Tarloff, jury selection is kicking off Tuesday October 12, 2010. Both sides are hoping they can get that fair and impartial jury to hear evidence of how Tarloff, a former mental patient of the living victim Dr. Kent Shinbach, took a meat cleaver to kill and severely injure his two victims.
Tarloff, is pleading the affirmative defense of insanity, saying he didn’t know right from wrong when he stabbed to death New York psychologist Dr. Kathryn Faughey and injured Shinbach, and is not criminally responsible for his conduct. The evidence shows Faughey, a practicing psychologist, was stabbed multiple times with a knife in addition to blows with a meat pounder. The attack happened February 12, 2008.
When Faughey’s associate, Dr. Kent Shinbach, heard her cries for help, Tarloff began to attack him with the meat cleaver itself. Tarloff had previously purchased the items as part of a kitchen combo set for meat preparation.
Tarloff, who was ruled competent and then incompetent to stand trial at one point, has been in and out of Rikers Island Jail and Bellevue Hospital in New York City since the killing. It was a diagnosis of mental delusions that led to the ruling that Tarloff could not understand his charges and was not able to assist his New York City defense attorney Bryan Konoski. Medication allowed for a competency ruling to be reinstated and the trial to go forward this week.
Prosecutors will have a videotaped statement of Tarloff taken after his arrest to play for the jury. Although the defendant does not confess to the act, he does tell investigators he never meant to hurt anyone.
Tarloff’s DNA was also found on suitcases he wheeled into the office building and the identification of Tarloff will be given by patients of the doctors who were at the office that night as well as Shinbach who survived the attack.
Prosecutors have said that motive for the killing was actually to get back at Shinbach who institutionalized the defendant now 20 years ago. Tarloff also wanted to rob the older psychiatrist, they say, so that Tarloff would have the money to take care of his mother. He lived with his mother for years. She had been moved to a rest home shortly before the attack.
If convicted of first degree murder, Tarloff will be sentenced under New York law to life in prison without parole or a term of imprisonment of up to life. If the jury would find Tarloff not guilty by reason of insanity, he would be sent to a psychiatric medical facility for an undetermined amount of time.
Jury selection is expected to take a week; the trial is expected to last six to eight weeks.
-Jean Casarez, In Session Correspondent
This article discusses a courts attempt to find a fair and impartial jury for a well known murder case. The right to a impartial jury is granted by the sixth amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2mjioiuN48
This video discusses Casey Anthony and a her well known case. Because the case was so highly publicized before trail the defense was having a difficult time finda a fair and impartial jury
The sixth amendment if outlines the criminal justice system used in the United States. This amendment grants citizens the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, a trial where the crime was commited, knowledge of the accusation, knowledge of those testifying against the accused, and legal counsel.
October 12, 2010
"Meat Cleaver" trial set to begin
New York, NY – In the case of New York vs. David Tarloff, jury selection is kicking off Tuesday October 12, 2010. Both sides are hoping they can get that fair and impartial jury to hear evidence of how Tarloff, a former mental patient of the living victim Dr. Kent Shinbach, took a meat cleaver to kill and severely injure his two victims.
Tarloff, is pleading the affirmative defense of insanity, saying he didn’t know right from wrong when he stabbed to death New York psychologist Dr. Kathryn Faughey and injured Shinbach, and is not criminally responsible for his conduct. The evidence shows Faughey, a practicing psychologist, was stabbed multiple times with a knife in addition to blows with a meat pounder. The attack happened February 12, 2008.
When Faughey’s associate, Dr. Kent Shinbach, heard her cries for help, Tarloff began to attack him with the meat cleaver itself. Tarloff had previously purchased the items as part of a kitchen combo set for meat preparation.
Tarloff, who was ruled competent and then incompetent to stand trial at one point, has been in and out of Rikers Island Jail and Bellevue Hospital in New York City since the killing. It was a diagnosis of mental delusions that led to the ruling that Tarloff could not understand his charges and was not able to assist his New York City defense attorney Bryan Konoski. Medication allowed for a competency ruling to be reinstated and the trial to go forward this week.
Prosecutors will have a videotaped statement of Tarloff taken after his arrest to play for the jury. Although the defendant does not confess to the act, he does tell investigators he never meant to hurt anyone.
Tarloff’s DNA was also found on suitcases he wheeled into the office building and the identification of Tarloff will be given by patients of the doctors who were at the office that night as well as Shinbach who survived the attack.
Prosecutors have said that motive for the killing was actually to get back at Shinbach who institutionalized the defendant now 20 years ago. Tarloff also wanted to rob the older psychiatrist, they say, so that Tarloff would have the money to take care of his mother. He lived with his mother for years. She had been moved to a rest home shortly before the attack.
If convicted of first degree murder, Tarloff will be sentenced under New York law to life in prison without parole or a term of imprisonment of up to life. If the jury would find Tarloff not guilty by reason of insanity, he would be sent to a psychiatric medical facility for an undetermined amount of time.
Jury selection is expected to take a week; the trial is expected to last six to eight weeks.
-Jean Casarez, In Session Correspondent
This article discusses a courts attempt to find a fair and impartial jury for a well known murder case. The right to a impartial jury is granted by the sixth amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2mjioiuN48
This video discusses Casey Anthony and a her well known case. Because the case was so highly publicized before trail the defense was having a difficult time finda a fair and impartial jury
Monday, October 11, 2010
Amendment 5
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Amendment 5 grants all citizens the right to trial by jury. It also states that a citizen can not be charged twice with the same crime and that a citizen is innocent until proved guilty. Citizens do not have to testify against themselves. A citizen charged with a crime can not have their rights taken away. And that the government can not take individual property without just compensation.
(CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse.
But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"?
Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.
Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value.
But now, people who don't want to sell their homes at any price - just to see their land go to another private owner - are fighting back. Correspondent Mike Wallace reports on this story, which first aired last fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim and Joanne Saleet are refusing to sell the home they've lived in for 38 years. They live in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in Lakewood, Ohio, just outside Cleveland.
The City of Lakewood is trying to use eminent domain to force the Saleets out to make way for more expensive condominiums. But the Saleets are telling the town, "Hell no! They won't go."
“The bottom line is this is morally wrong, what they're doing here. This is our home. And we're going to stay here. And I'm gonna fight them tooth and nail. I've just begun to fight,” says Jim Saleet.
“We talked about this when we were dating. I used to point to the houses and say, 'Joanne, one of these days we're going to have one of these houses.' And I meant it. And I worked hard.”
Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children.
But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.
Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base.
The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money.
“This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely,” says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home.
The Saleets live in an area called Scenic Park, and because it is so scenic, it's a prime place to build upscale condominiums. With great views, over the Rocky River, those condos will be a cinch to sell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the condos can't go up unless the city can remove the Saleets and their neighbors through eminent domain. And to legally invoke eminent domain, the city had to certify that this scenic park area is, really, "blighted."
“We're not blighted. This is an area that we absolutely love. This is a close-knit, beautiful neighborhood. It's what America's all about,” says Jim Saleet. “And, Mike, you don't know how humiliating this is to have people tell you, 'You live in a blighted area,' and how degrading this is.”
"The term 'blighted' is a statutory word," says Mayor Cain. “It is, it really doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not your home is painted. ...A statutory term is used to describe an area. The question is whether or not that area can be used for a higher and better use.”
But what’s higher and better than a home? “The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards,” says Cain.
And it's the city that sets those standards, so Lakewood set a standard for blight that would include most of the homes in the neighborhood. A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air.
“This community's over 100 years old. Who has all those things? That's the criteria. And it's ridiculous,” says Jim Saleet. “And, by the way, we got up at a meeting and told the mayor and all seven council members, their houses are blighted, according to this criteria.”
Cain admits that her house doesn’t have two bathrooms, a two-car garage and the lot size is less than 5,000 square feet.
The Saleets may live in a cute little neighborhood, but without those new condos, the area won’t produce enough property taxes to satisfy the mayor and city council.
“That's no excuse for taking my home. My home is not for sale. And if my home isn't safe, nobody's home is safe, in the whole country,” says Jim Saleet. “Not only Ohio. But this is rampant all over the country. It's like a plague.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Berliner and Scott Bullock are attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called The Institute for Justice, which has filed suit on behalf of the Saleets against the City of Lakewood. They claim that taking private property this way is unconstitutional.
“This is a nationwide epidemic,” says Berliner. “We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years.”
“It is fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the Constitution for the government to take property from one private owner, and hand it over to another private owner, just because the government thinks that person is going to make more productive use of the land,” says Bullock.
“Everyone knows that property can be taken for a road. But nobody thinks that property can be taken to give it to their neighbor or the large business down the street for their economic benefit,” adds Berliner. “People are shocked when they hear that this is going on around the country.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it's not just people's homes that are the targets in these eminent domain cases. The Institute for Justice has also filed suit against the City of Mesa, Ariz., to save Randy Bailey's Brake Repair Shop - the shop he got from his father and hopes to someday pass on to his son.
The City of Mesa, citing the need for "redevelopment," is trying to force Bailey to relocate to make way for an Ace Hardware Store that would look better and pay more taxes.
"Redevelopment to me means work with existing people who are there and redevelop. Not, 'You get out! We're bringing this guy in,'" says Bailey, whose business has been on the same corner for more than 30 years.
Business has been awesome, Bailey says. But now, he says they’re going to turn his business into dirt. In fact, the city has “made dirt” out of three restaurants and four businesses that once stood on a five-acre lot.
“And it's not just business properties that they're going this on. You know, they wiped out eight people's homes over here. Your home ain't even safe,” says Bailey, who told 60 Minutes that his neighbors let the city buy them out.
But he’s refusing to sell: “I’m standing in their way. I’m their thorn in their side.”
And he’s a thorn in the side of Ken Lenhart, who owns the Ace Hardware Store a few blocks away. Lenhart wants a much bigger store. He could have negotiated with Bailey, but instead, he convinced the City of Mesa to try to buy Bailey's land through eminent domain and then sell it to him.
“The City of Mesa wants to move Mr. Bailey about a block away, and from what I understand it's gonna be a new building, new equipment, moving expenses and everything set up for him,” says Lenhart. “I don't see how Mr. Bailey is gonna get hurt.”
“You can't replace a business being in the same location. This place was built in 1952 as a brake and front-end shop,” says Bailey. “I don't care where you move it in the City of Mesa, it would never be the same.”
So Bailey went to Lenhart looking for a way to stay on his corner.
“I tried to go to him and see if we couldn't work something out on this. And he told me, 'No, there ain't room for you there. We're gonna let the city just take care of you,'" says Bailey.
Lenhart admits that he never tried to negotiate with Bailey: "It happens all over the country. In practically any town you want to go to, they're redeveloping their town centers. Now, we are going to sit in Mesa, Arizona and have our town center decay? As a citizen of Mesa, I don't want that to happen."
But Bailey says his business was on private property, and not for sale: “If I'd had a 'For Sale' sign out there, it would have been a whole different deal. And for them to come in and tell me how much my property's worth and for me to get out because they're bringing in somebody else when I own the land is unfounded to me. It doesn't even sound like the United States.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.
The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.
“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”
But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.
Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.
Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough.
“I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office.
In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain.
But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters.
© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This article discusses government forceably buying property from citizens for the betterment of the community. It discusses the fairness of this to private citizens. I do not think that it is fair for the government to force citizens out of their homes for public use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfiB0_SYxDc
This is the trailor for the movie Double Jeopardy. This movie is about a woman who was found guilty of murdering her husband and served time for it. After being released she decided to kill him, because he is still alive, knowing that she won't have to serve time for it again because no person can be charged with the same crime twice.
Amendment 5 grants all citizens the right to trial by jury. It also states that a citizen can not be charged twice with the same crime and that a citizen is innocent until proved guilty. Citizens do not have to testify against themselves. A citizen charged with a crime can not have their rights taken away. And that the government can not take individual property without just compensation.
(CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse.
But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"?
Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.
Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value.
But now, people who don't want to sell their homes at any price - just to see their land go to another private owner - are fighting back. Correspondent Mike Wallace reports on this story, which first aired last fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim and Joanne Saleet are refusing to sell the home they've lived in for 38 years. They live in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in Lakewood, Ohio, just outside Cleveland.
The City of Lakewood is trying to use eminent domain to force the Saleets out to make way for more expensive condominiums. But the Saleets are telling the town, "Hell no! They won't go."
“The bottom line is this is morally wrong, what they're doing here. This is our home. And we're going to stay here. And I'm gonna fight them tooth and nail. I've just begun to fight,” says Jim Saleet.
“We talked about this when we were dating. I used to point to the houses and say, 'Joanne, one of these days we're going to have one of these houses.' And I meant it. And I worked hard.”
Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children.
But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.
Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base.
The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money.
“This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely,” says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home.
The Saleets live in an area called Scenic Park, and because it is so scenic, it's a prime place to build upscale condominiums. With great views, over the Rocky River, those condos will be a cinch to sell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the condos can't go up unless the city can remove the Saleets and their neighbors through eminent domain. And to legally invoke eminent domain, the city had to certify that this scenic park area is, really, "blighted."
“We're not blighted. This is an area that we absolutely love. This is a close-knit, beautiful neighborhood. It's what America's all about,” says Jim Saleet. “And, Mike, you don't know how humiliating this is to have people tell you, 'You live in a blighted area,' and how degrading this is.”
"The term 'blighted' is a statutory word," says Mayor Cain. “It is, it really doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not your home is painted. ...A statutory term is used to describe an area. The question is whether or not that area can be used for a higher and better use.”
But what’s higher and better than a home? “The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards,” says Cain.
And it's the city that sets those standards, so Lakewood set a standard for blight that would include most of the homes in the neighborhood. A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air.
“This community's over 100 years old. Who has all those things? That's the criteria. And it's ridiculous,” says Jim Saleet. “And, by the way, we got up at a meeting and told the mayor and all seven council members, their houses are blighted, according to this criteria.”
Cain admits that her house doesn’t have two bathrooms, a two-car garage and the lot size is less than 5,000 square feet.
The Saleets may live in a cute little neighborhood, but without those new condos, the area won’t produce enough property taxes to satisfy the mayor and city council.
“That's no excuse for taking my home. My home is not for sale. And if my home isn't safe, nobody's home is safe, in the whole country,” says Jim Saleet. “Not only Ohio. But this is rampant all over the country. It's like a plague.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Berliner and Scott Bullock are attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called The Institute for Justice, which has filed suit on behalf of the Saleets against the City of Lakewood. They claim that taking private property this way is unconstitutional.
“This is a nationwide epidemic,” says Berliner. “We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years.”
“It is fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the Constitution for the government to take property from one private owner, and hand it over to another private owner, just because the government thinks that person is going to make more productive use of the land,” says Bullock.
“Everyone knows that property can be taken for a road. But nobody thinks that property can be taken to give it to their neighbor or the large business down the street for their economic benefit,” adds Berliner. “People are shocked when they hear that this is going on around the country.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it's not just people's homes that are the targets in these eminent domain cases. The Institute for Justice has also filed suit against the City of Mesa, Ariz., to save Randy Bailey's Brake Repair Shop - the shop he got from his father and hopes to someday pass on to his son.
The City of Mesa, citing the need for "redevelopment," is trying to force Bailey to relocate to make way for an Ace Hardware Store that would look better and pay more taxes.
"Redevelopment to me means work with existing people who are there and redevelop. Not, 'You get out! We're bringing this guy in,'" says Bailey, whose business has been on the same corner for more than 30 years.
Business has been awesome, Bailey says. But now, he says they’re going to turn his business into dirt. In fact, the city has “made dirt” out of three restaurants and four businesses that once stood on a five-acre lot.
“And it's not just business properties that they're going this on. You know, they wiped out eight people's homes over here. Your home ain't even safe,” says Bailey, who told 60 Minutes that his neighbors let the city buy them out.
But he’s refusing to sell: “I’m standing in their way. I’m their thorn in their side.”
And he’s a thorn in the side of Ken Lenhart, who owns the Ace Hardware Store a few blocks away. Lenhart wants a much bigger store. He could have negotiated with Bailey, but instead, he convinced the City of Mesa to try to buy Bailey's land through eminent domain and then sell it to him.
“The City of Mesa wants to move Mr. Bailey about a block away, and from what I understand it's gonna be a new building, new equipment, moving expenses and everything set up for him,” says Lenhart. “I don't see how Mr. Bailey is gonna get hurt.”
“You can't replace a business being in the same location. This place was built in 1952 as a brake and front-end shop,” says Bailey. “I don't care where you move it in the City of Mesa, it would never be the same.”
So Bailey went to Lenhart looking for a way to stay on his corner.
“I tried to go to him and see if we couldn't work something out on this. And he told me, 'No, there ain't room for you there. We're gonna let the city just take care of you,'" says Bailey.
Lenhart admits that he never tried to negotiate with Bailey: "It happens all over the country. In practically any town you want to go to, they're redeveloping their town centers. Now, we are going to sit in Mesa, Arizona and have our town center decay? As a citizen of Mesa, I don't want that to happen."
But Bailey says his business was on private property, and not for sale: “If I'd had a 'For Sale' sign out there, it would have been a whole different deal. And for them to come in and tell me how much my property's worth and for me to get out because they're bringing in somebody else when I own the land is unfounded to me. It doesn't even sound like the United States.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.
The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.
“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”
But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.
Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.
Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough.
“I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office.
In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain.
But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters.
© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This article discusses government forceably buying property from citizens for the betterment of the community. It discusses the fairness of this to private citizens. I do not think that it is fair for the government to force citizens out of their homes for public use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfiB0_SYxDc
This is the trailor for the movie Double Jeopardy. This movie is about a woman who was found guilty of murdering her husband and served time for it. After being released she decided to kill him, because he is still alive, knowing that she won't have to serve time for it again because no person can be charged with the same crime twice.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is amendment is very important today. American citizens have the right against unreasonable search and seizure. I think this amendment is very applicable to todays world.
At Council Hearing on Stop-and-Frisk Policy, the Police Stay SilentBy RAY RIVERA
Published: September 28, 2010
John Marshall Mantel for The New York Times
Marquis Jenkins, with a group called Good Old Lower East Side, greeting Jin Hee Lee with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, at a hearing on the stop-and-frisk policy.
Officials with both agencies cited pending federal litigation surrounding the policy in deciding not to appear. The officials said they had intended to testify when the hearing was to examine a wide range of policing initiatives in New York City Housing Authority developments.
But on Sept. 20, the Police Department was notified by Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn’s office by telephone that the hearing would be restricted to questions on the stop, question and frisk policy, and that broader questions of safety would be addressed at a separate hearing, said Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman.
“We were told then,” Mr. Browne said, “that the speaker understood that the N.Y.P.D. wouldn’t be able to participate at a hearing devoted strictly to a matter being litigated.”
The explanation failed to satisfy Ms. Quinn and other council members, who were critical of both agencies but who focused their pique on the police. The anger reflected long-running frustration between some on the Council and the department over its stop, question and frisk policy.
The Police Department and the Housing Authority had observers present at the hearing, which lasted several hours as housing residents, lawyers and advocates, one after the other, blasted both agencies. One housing tenant from Manhattan, Marquis Jenkins, 27, said getting stopped had become a sort of “rite of passage” for young men of color growing up in the developments.
The policy, which the department has increasingly turned to in recent years as a core part of its crime deterrent strategy, allows officers to temporarily detain anyone they believe may be engaging in criminal activity, and to conduct a search if the person is believed to be carrying a weapon. Police officials also declined to appear at a similar council hearing in April 2009, Council officials said.
In a sharply worded letter to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly on Tuesday, Ms. Quinn criticized him for “yet again” failing to testify about stop and frisk.
“Your failure to appear and answer these questions only reinforces some of the worst suspicions critics of the department hold,” wrote Ms. Quinn, who has generally supported the department’s stop-and-frisk policy.
Ms. Quinn said the hearing was to include stop-and-frisk and other initiatives. But once it became clear police and housing officials would not discuss stop and frisks, she decided to split it into two hearings to give the other broader initiatives a fair discussion.
A federal class-action lawsuit filed against the police and the Housing Authority in January claims that public housing tenants and their visitors are subjected to police aggression and unwarranted trespass arrests. The lawsuit was filed by the Legal Aid Society, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
A separate lawsuit filed in 2008 by the Center for Constitutional Rights accuses the department of engaging in racial profiling and baseless stop and frisks.
Councilman Jumaane D. Williams of Brooklyn described the Police Department’s failure to appear as disrespectful. “Lawsuit or not, we’ve had other testimony when litigation is pending,” he said.
Mr. Browne called the criticisms “disingenuous in the extreme and a sop to plaintiffs’ lawyers,” because the Council knew the department was prepared to testify about other initiatives until the hearing’s scope was narrowed. The department did send a letter to the Council on Monday outlining public safety initiatives it has undertaken in public housing, including changes to the Patrol Guide regarding how officers patrol public housing buildings and when to conduct stop and frisks inside them.
This article is discussing a search and siezure policy in New York City and the constitutionality of it. I think that this policy is constitutional because it does not encroach on someones property.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbap_Eyv8sU
This is a video of a search and seizure on cops. It shows the proper procedure.
This is amendment is very important today. American citizens have the right against unreasonable search and seizure. I think this amendment is very applicable to todays world.
At Council Hearing on Stop-and-Frisk Policy, the Police Stay SilentBy RAY RIVERA
Published: September 28, 2010
John Marshall Mantel for The New York Times
Marquis Jenkins, with a group called Good Old Lower East Side, greeting Jin Hee Lee with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, at a hearing on the stop-and-frisk policy.
Officials with both agencies cited pending federal litigation surrounding the policy in deciding not to appear. The officials said they had intended to testify when the hearing was to examine a wide range of policing initiatives in New York City Housing Authority developments.
But on Sept. 20, the Police Department was notified by Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn’s office by telephone that the hearing would be restricted to questions on the stop, question and frisk policy, and that broader questions of safety would be addressed at a separate hearing, said Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman.
“We were told then,” Mr. Browne said, “that the speaker understood that the N.Y.P.D. wouldn’t be able to participate at a hearing devoted strictly to a matter being litigated.”
The explanation failed to satisfy Ms. Quinn and other council members, who were critical of both agencies but who focused their pique on the police. The anger reflected long-running frustration between some on the Council and the department over its stop, question and frisk policy.
The Police Department and the Housing Authority had observers present at the hearing, which lasted several hours as housing residents, lawyers and advocates, one after the other, blasted both agencies. One housing tenant from Manhattan, Marquis Jenkins, 27, said getting stopped had become a sort of “rite of passage” for young men of color growing up in the developments.
The policy, which the department has increasingly turned to in recent years as a core part of its crime deterrent strategy, allows officers to temporarily detain anyone they believe may be engaging in criminal activity, and to conduct a search if the person is believed to be carrying a weapon. Police officials also declined to appear at a similar council hearing in April 2009, Council officials said.
In a sharply worded letter to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly on Tuesday, Ms. Quinn criticized him for “yet again” failing to testify about stop and frisk.
“Your failure to appear and answer these questions only reinforces some of the worst suspicions critics of the department hold,” wrote Ms. Quinn, who has generally supported the department’s stop-and-frisk policy.
Ms. Quinn said the hearing was to include stop-and-frisk and other initiatives. But once it became clear police and housing officials would not discuss stop and frisks, she decided to split it into two hearings to give the other broader initiatives a fair discussion.
A federal class-action lawsuit filed against the police and the Housing Authority in January claims that public housing tenants and their visitors are subjected to police aggression and unwarranted trespass arrests. The lawsuit was filed by the Legal Aid Society, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
A separate lawsuit filed in 2008 by the Center for Constitutional Rights accuses the department of engaging in racial profiling and baseless stop and frisks.
Councilman Jumaane D. Williams of Brooklyn described the Police Department’s failure to appear as disrespectful. “Lawsuit or not, we’ve had other testimony when litigation is pending,” he said.
Mr. Browne called the criticisms “disingenuous in the extreme and a sop to plaintiffs’ lawyers,” because the Council knew the department was prepared to testify about other initiatives until the hearing’s scope was narrowed. The department did send a letter to the Council on Monday outlining public safety initiatives it has undertaken in public housing, including changes to the Patrol Guide regarding how officers patrol public housing buildings and when to conduct stop and frisks inside them.
This article is discussing a search and siezure policy in New York City and the constitutionality of it. I think that this policy is constitutional because it does not encroach on someones property.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbap_Eyv8sU
This is a video of a search and seizure on cops. It shows the proper procedure.
Amendment 3
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This amendment was important during the writing of the constitution because British soilders had been living in homes without permission. This amendment is not as applicable today. First of all because the Army has built forts where soilders are housed. Secondly because most American citizens would willing house American soilders.
Quartering Species
October 1, 2000
Richard L. Stroup, Andrew P. Morriss
The Freeman
Most Americans seldom think about the Third Amendment. Relegated by most scholars and courts to footnotes and history books, the Third Amendment states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The federal government pays for quartering soldiers, and military bases are highly sought after political prizes, not the subject of popular discontent.
That wasn’t always the case, however. All during the colonial period Americans resisted British military authorities’ attempts to quarter soldiers on individuals’ property without compensation. That experience led to the Third Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights and in numerous state constitutions as well.
The federal government may no longer involuntarily quarter troops but it is still attempting to use private property to “quarter” living creatures. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the federal government routinely forces private property owners to bear the cost of supporting those species officially listed as “endangered.” Those costs can be substantial—many species require large areas of undisturbed land around their nests and dens, for example, effectively ending the ability to develop or otherwise use land.
What’s the connection with the Third Amendment? We started wondering what would happen if we took one of the left’s favorite constitutional legal theories seriously and applied former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan’s “living constitution” theory to the Third Amendment. Could ESA pass constitutional muster?
Unlike some of the other parts of the Constitution, the Third Amendment’s language appears to be straightforward with a plain and obvious meaning: The Founders did not want soldiers put into people’s houses in peacetime without the homeowner’s consent or during wartime without due process. But this is no bar to a “living constitution” approach. Be forewarned—the “living constitution” is not for the faint of heart. And, we hasten to add, we don’t think it is a legitimate mode of constitutional interpretation. But what if the same courts that found nude dancing to be speech had to apply their theories of interpretation to the Third Amendment? In an article appearing this fall in Environmental Law, a leading environmental law review, we argue that if the Constitution forbids the government to quarter soldiers in private homes, then it forbids it also to require people to quarter birds, rats, or grizzly bears simply because they are endangered.1
Our law review essay in part poked fun at the “living constitution” interpretations continually being offered to “update” the Constitution. [p. 49] Our essay was partly tongue-in-cheek, but the question is sensible: If it is wrong—legally and morally—for a person to be commanded to provide a home for a soldier, why should he or she be commanded to offer food and lodging to animals? Here we outline the legitimate comparison (minus the legalistic debate over how expansively to interpret provisions of the Constitution). We begin with a bit of history.
French and Indian Wars
Quartering problems in colonial America became serious in 1754 and 1755 because the French and Indian Wars caused additional British troop movements. American inns were small, and Americans objected to quartering. They resented sharing their homes with often rude and boorish strangers—at their own expense and at the sole discretion of the British military authorities. Some colonies enacted specific bans on quartering.
Now consider the Endangered Species Act, enacted by Congress in 1973. A sweeping piece of command-and-control legislation, it dictates that species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” will be granted extraordinary levels of protection from human beings. The Congressional Research Service labeled ESA “one of this country’s most important and powerful environmental laws.”2 Habitat destruction, after all, is serious. Habitat destruction and degradation are by far the leading threats to biodiversity, contributing to the endangerment of at least 88 percent of the plants and animals on the endangered species list.3 Under ESA, more than 1,200 species are now listed as “endangered” or “threatened,” resulting in use restrictions on millions of acres of public and private land because of their presence.4
The success of ESA in actually saving species, however, is questionable at best. By May 1998, 34 species out of 1,138 listed had made it off the endangered and threatened lists. But of those, five were de-listed owing to their extinction, four had been removed because their listing had been due to taxonomic error, ten more were listed due to data error, and several others, arguably, had recovered for reasons other than ESA.5
ESA’s failure is not due to a lack of funding. In 1993, for example, more than $500 million federal dollars were spent on endangered species protections; the figure has been rapidly rising.6 States, too, bear substantial costs, running in some cases into the tens of millions of dollars per year. Far more is spent by private sources across the nation. Indeed, the power of ESA comes from its ability to use private property without compensation. And therein lies the problem.
The ESA process today gives biologists of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) veto power over any use of land, public or private, that they consider potentially important as home to a listed species. FWS biologists decide whether land can be used for logging, farming, or building. They become, in important respects, the land’s managers. They need not consider the value of the alternative uses of the land.
Land is not, however, free, even when government bureaucrats treat it that way. As a result, government land managers will allocate “too much” land to habitat protection. There are three reasons for that:
First, a zero price is artificially low relative to the cost of other methods, such as active land management, that can add to land’s ability to support the species in question; so too much land is used;
Second, the decision-maker has no reason to economize on the true cost of the land inputs by, for example, using a bid process to find low-cost providers of land services; so the wrong land is used; and
Third, the total money cost to the decision-maker for each project is far less than the project’s true cost to society; so voters and politicians never face the true cost of what the regulations demand.
The actions required of landowners by the FWS are high cost and land-intensive because land use is free to the agency. It fails to take even simple steps to increase the productivity of habitat because, while restrictions placed on land are “free” to the FWS, other simple steps are not, even when those steps cost little and work well. They cannot force a landowner to place an inexpensive nest box in a tree under ESA’s authority, but they can limit land use on many acres around a nest. Ironically, the past century gives many examples, such as bluebirds and waterfowl, where without ESA hanging over their heads, many landowners were happy to allow enthusiasts to place nest boxes for threatened species. Under ESA, however, landowners are almost surely punished by restrictions brought on by the species’ presence. They are now reluctant to allow any such action that would attract a listed species. As a result, habitat protection is made far more costly to society than it needs to be. Over time, this can lead to too little habitat protection, as voters come to sense the high cost to people of such projects—even though much of the cost is off-budget.
Even more important for species protection, treating land use as free creates perverse incentives for landowners to pre-emptively destroy habitat, since the presence of a designated or “listed” endangered species is an economic liability. And animal species, unlike British soldiers, can often be kept away by simple land-management techniques. The actions of the FWS, if not those of the protected animal, have become feared and unwelcome. The logic is clear. ESA gives private landowners an incentive to manage their land to keep away listed species. Many do just that. Examples are plentiful in the news media, but there is statistical evidence also.
Economists Dean Lueck and Jeffrey Michael examined how the presence of the red-cockaded woodpecker affected timber harvest rates and the age of harvests in North Carolina.7 Using data from the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis and a 1997-98 North Carolina State University survey of over 400 landowners, and sophisticated econometric techniques, Lueck and Michael found statistically significant evidence that “increases in the proximity of a plot to [woodpeckers] increases the probability that the plot will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested.”
Involuntary Host
Now let us return to our theme: Is requiring a landowner to host an endangered species onhis land “quartering” within the meaning of our interpretation of the Third Amendment?
Americans objected to the involuntary quartering of soldiers on their property for several reasons: Property owners lost the use of the part of the property the soldiers physically occupied; they lost privacy in other areas of their homes; they also had to deal with problems from the behavior of the soldiers and their visitors on the premises, losses from the increased wear and tear created by the soldiers’ presence, and losses from the need to deal with the British military on numerous small problems that arose while the soldiers were quartered.
ESA imposes similar costs on property owners, who must deal with government regulators concerning the use of their land. Property owners have even been forbidden to build new homes or protect existing homes on or near property where endangered species have been located.
The original Third Amendment ended the quartering problem by putting it on budget and making it voluntary. Local enthusiasm for soldiers now is so great that we have too many domestic military establishments, not too few. The same respect for property rights and the market process that allows voluntary quartering of soldiers and minimizes the cost to all of doing so would work for animals as well. Species, landowners, and constitutional government would be the worthy winners.
This article discusses the third amendment as it applies to endangered species. The federal government requires land owners to care for endangered species that live on their land. The author discusses if this law is in violation of the third amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MpYD2mMQqU
This video was created by a group of high school students and displays citizens rights to deny a soilder a right to stay in their home.
This amendment was important during the writing of the constitution because British soilders had been living in homes without permission. This amendment is not as applicable today. First of all because the Army has built forts where soilders are housed. Secondly because most American citizens would willing house American soilders.
Quartering Species
October 1, 2000
Richard L. Stroup, Andrew P. Morriss
The Freeman
Most Americans seldom think about the Third Amendment. Relegated by most scholars and courts to footnotes and history books, the Third Amendment states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The federal government pays for quartering soldiers, and military bases are highly sought after political prizes, not the subject of popular discontent.
That wasn’t always the case, however. All during the colonial period Americans resisted British military authorities’ attempts to quarter soldiers on individuals’ property without compensation. That experience led to the Third Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights and in numerous state constitutions as well.
The federal government may no longer involuntarily quarter troops but it is still attempting to use private property to “quarter” living creatures. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the federal government routinely forces private property owners to bear the cost of supporting those species officially listed as “endangered.” Those costs can be substantial—many species require large areas of undisturbed land around their nests and dens, for example, effectively ending the ability to develop or otherwise use land.
What’s the connection with the Third Amendment? We started wondering what would happen if we took one of the left’s favorite constitutional legal theories seriously and applied former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan’s “living constitution” theory to the Third Amendment. Could ESA pass constitutional muster?
Unlike some of the other parts of the Constitution, the Third Amendment’s language appears to be straightforward with a plain and obvious meaning: The Founders did not want soldiers put into people’s houses in peacetime without the homeowner’s consent or during wartime without due process. But this is no bar to a “living constitution” approach. Be forewarned—the “living constitution” is not for the faint of heart. And, we hasten to add, we don’t think it is a legitimate mode of constitutional interpretation. But what if the same courts that found nude dancing to be speech had to apply their theories of interpretation to the Third Amendment? In an article appearing this fall in Environmental Law, a leading environmental law review, we argue that if the Constitution forbids the government to quarter soldiers in private homes, then it forbids it also to require people to quarter birds, rats, or grizzly bears simply because they are endangered.1
Our law review essay in part poked fun at the “living constitution” interpretations continually being offered to “update” the Constitution. [p. 49] Our essay was partly tongue-in-cheek, but the question is sensible: If it is wrong—legally and morally—for a person to be commanded to provide a home for a soldier, why should he or she be commanded to offer food and lodging to animals? Here we outline the legitimate comparison (minus the legalistic debate over how expansively to interpret provisions of the Constitution). We begin with a bit of history.
French and Indian Wars
Quartering problems in colonial America became serious in 1754 and 1755 because the French and Indian Wars caused additional British troop movements. American inns were small, and Americans objected to quartering. They resented sharing their homes with often rude and boorish strangers—at their own expense and at the sole discretion of the British military authorities. Some colonies enacted specific bans on quartering.
Now consider the Endangered Species Act, enacted by Congress in 1973. A sweeping piece of command-and-control legislation, it dictates that species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” will be granted extraordinary levels of protection from human beings. The Congressional Research Service labeled ESA “one of this country’s most important and powerful environmental laws.”2 Habitat destruction, after all, is serious. Habitat destruction and degradation are by far the leading threats to biodiversity, contributing to the endangerment of at least 88 percent of the plants and animals on the endangered species list.3 Under ESA, more than 1,200 species are now listed as “endangered” or “threatened,” resulting in use restrictions on millions of acres of public and private land because of their presence.4
The success of ESA in actually saving species, however, is questionable at best. By May 1998, 34 species out of 1,138 listed had made it off the endangered and threatened lists. But of those, five were de-listed owing to their extinction, four had been removed because their listing had been due to taxonomic error, ten more were listed due to data error, and several others, arguably, had recovered for reasons other than ESA.5
ESA’s failure is not due to a lack of funding. In 1993, for example, more than $500 million federal dollars were spent on endangered species protections; the figure has been rapidly rising.6 States, too, bear substantial costs, running in some cases into the tens of millions of dollars per year. Far more is spent by private sources across the nation. Indeed, the power of ESA comes from its ability to use private property without compensation. And therein lies the problem.
The ESA process today gives biologists of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) veto power over any use of land, public or private, that they consider potentially important as home to a listed species. FWS biologists decide whether land can be used for logging, farming, or building. They become, in important respects, the land’s managers. They need not consider the value of the alternative uses of the land.
Land is not, however, free, even when government bureaucrats treat it that way. As a result, government land managers will allocate “too much” land to habitat protection. There are three reasons for that:
First, a zero price is artificially low relative to the cost of other methods, such as active land management, that can add to land’s ability to support the species in question; so too much land is used;
Second, the decision-maker has no reason to economize on the true cost of the land inputs by, for example, using a bid process to find low-cost providers of land services; so the wrong land is used; and
Third, the total money cost to the decision-maker for each project is far less than the project’s true cost to society; so voters and politicians never face the true cost of what the regulations demand.
The actions required of landowners by the FWS are high cost and land-intensive because land use is free to the agency. It fails to take even simple steps to increase the productivity of habitat because, while restrictions placed on land are “free” to the FWS, other simple steps are not, even when those steps cost little and work well. They cannot force a landowner to place an inexpensive nest box in a tree under ESA’s authority, but they can limit land use on many acres around a nest. Ironically, the past century gives many examples, such as bluebirds and waterfowl, where without ESA hanging over their heads, many landowners were happy to allow enthusiasts to place nest boxes for threatened species. Under ESA, however, landowners are almost surely punished by restrictions brought on by the species’ presence. They are now reluctant to allow any such action that would attract a listed species. As a result, habitat protection is made far more costly to society than it needs to be. Over time, this can lead to too little habitat protection, as voters come to sense the high cost to people of such projects—even though much of the cost is off-budget.
Even more important for species protection, treating land use as free creates perverse incentives for landowners to pre-emptively destroy habitat, since the presence of a designated or “listed” endangered species is an economic liability. And animal species, unlike British soldiers, can often be kept away by simple land-management techniques. The actions of the FWS, if not those of the protected animal, have become feared and unwelcome. The logic is clear. ESA gives private landowners an incentive to manage their land to keep away listed species. Many do just that. Examples are plentiful in the news media, but there is statistical evidence also.
Economists Dean Lueck and Jeffrey Michael examined how the presence of the red-cockaded woodpecker affected timber harvest rates and the age of harvests in North Carolina.7 Using data from the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis and a 1997-98 North Carolina State University survey of over 400 landowners, and sophisticated econometric techniques, Lueck and Michael found statistically significant evidence that “increases in the proximity of a plot to [woodpeckers] increases the probability that the plot will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested.”
Involuntary Host
Now let us return to our theme: Is requiring a landowner to host an endangered species onhis land “quartering” within the meaning of our interpretation of the Third Amendment?
Americans objected to the involuntary quartering of soldiers on their property for several reasons: Property owners lost the use of the part of the property the soldiers physically occupied; they lost privacy in other areas of their homes; they also had to deal with problems from the behavior of the soldiers and their visitors on the premises, losses from the increased wear and tear created by the soldiers’ presence, and losses from the need to deal with the British military on numerous small problems that arose while the soldiers were quartered.
ESA imposes similar costs on property owners, who must deal with government regulators concerning the use of their land. Property owners have even been forbidden to build new homes or protect existing homes on or near property where endangered species have been located.
The original Third Amendment ended the quartering problem by putting it on budget and making it voluntary. Local enthusiasm for soldiers now is so great that we have too many domestic military establishments, not too few. The same respect for property rights and the market process that allows voluntary quartering of soldiers and minimizes the cost to all of doing so would work for animals as well. Species, landowners, and constitutional government would be the worthy winners.
This article discusses the third amendment as it applies to endangered species. The federal government requires land owners to care for endangered species that live on their land. The author discusses if this law is in violation of the third amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MpYD2mMQqU
This video was created by a group of high school students and displays citizens rights to deny a soilder a right to stay in their home.
Amendment 2
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I believe this amendment to be both helpful and harmful to the American public. While this amendment was necessary at the beginning of our countries founding it is often misconstrude. America has a well trained and funded army, making the necessity of militias a thing of the past. And while people do deserve the right to bear arms individuals often use this amendment as a reason for unresponsible ownership.
My Take: Getting in the way of gun violence
Editor's Note: Shane Claiborne is an author and activist and an architect of Philadelphia's Simple Way community. His books include "Jesus for President" and the bestselling "Irresistible Revolution."
By Shane Claiborne, Special to CNN
Last week there were gunshots again. This time, four people were hit with bullets. One was 3 years old.
I don’t live in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a place where 5-year-olds know how to distinguish the sound of fireworks from the pops of a gunfire.
Nearly every night this week there have been gunshots. And it’s been only about six months since we heard gunshots on our street one cold February night and looked out the window to see a 19-year-old kid stumbling down the block with blood pouring out of his body. We held him, prayed with him and watched him die.
Martin Luther King, Jr. remembered the good Samaritan story in the Bible and said in effect (my paraphrase): We are all called to be the good Samaritan and lift our injured neighbor out of the ditch… but after you lift so many people out of the ditch, you start to say, maybe the whole road to Jericho needs to be re-imagined.
For over a decade in North Philly, my faith community has been actively teaching kids nonviolence rooted in the truth that it is more courageous to love our enemies than to kill them (a truth I have learned from Jesus).
And we have been trying to create jobs so that kids on corners have other options than the drug economy. But there comes a point where we start to ask deeper questions, like “where are they getting the guns?”
As we dug into that question, we began to discover that there are a handful of irresponsible gun shops that illegal guns get tracked back to.
I’ll admit, my first instinct was not to try and push for legislation and laws and regulation. That is why I was excited to learn about a “Code of Conduct” drafted by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. These are 10 steps of ethical business that several hundred mayors agreed would cut down gun violence if gun shop owners would commit to them.
We began to approach gun shop owners with an opportunity to take this step of integrity. Eventually, hundreds of folks in Philadelphia and beyond joined a movement to ask gun shop owners to sign onto this code.
Some did. In fact, the largest gun dealer in the world, Wal-Mart, signed onto the code. But some did not.
Many religious leaders in Philadelphia felt they were left with no choice but to peacefully put our bodies in the way of the trafficking of guns onto the streets, and we began holding prayer vigils outside gun shops.
In one case we had a little revival outside one of the most notorious gun shops in Philadelphia, Colosimo’s on Spring Garden Street.
About a dozen Christian clergy and other people of conscience were arrested as they did a sit-in (or a “pray-in”). In a showcase trial, they were found not guilty, and in the ensuing days the gun shop owner pleaded guilty of trafficking guns, his license was revoked, and the shop was closed down.
So miracles can happen. But I’m a strong believer that so often we wait on God, and God is waiting on us. We throw our hands in the air and say, “God why don’t you do something”… and God is saying, “I did do something … I made you."
So we have begun that same conversation with the owner of the gun shop around the corner from my house in North Philadelphia, The Shooter Shop. It was listed in a 2004 survey by Americans for Gun Safety as one of worst gun shops in America because over 200 guns used in violent crimes were tracked back to it.
Meanwhile, as we wait for the owner to agree to the code or another miracle to shut this one down, 3-year-olds are getting hit with stray bullets. Like I said, my first instinct is not legislation but to hope that gun shop owners like Mr. Haney at the Shooter Shop will let their conscience help clean up the Jericho road.
But I do wonder if there are laws that can help, sort of like guard rails on the highway. To use a hunting analogy, maybe there is no silver bullet, but there may be a silver buckshot. We need responsible teenagers, and we also need responsible gun shop owners and responsible laws.
One of the pieces of legislation that seems like a no-brainer is sometimes called the “One Handgun a Month” law, which would not get in the way of the Second Amendment right to bear arms but simply says maybe 12 guns a year are enough.
It rests on the premise that if folks are buying more than a dozen guns a year, they are probably doing something other than giving them away as Christmas presents.
The sad thing is that powerful lobbyists are against some of these sensible laws, which is why folks can still buy 50 guns at a time - some of them undoubtedly landing on the streets and killing 19-year-old kids like Papito, the kid we held back in February as he died.
We can do better. We can re-imagine together the road to Jericho. Everyone has a role to play, whether it be a Christian pacifist like myself or a responsible hunter like the “Hunters Against Gun Violence” who have been working for an end to violence on the streets.
I saw a recent study that unveiled the terrible state of our Jericho road here in the U.S. when it comes to gun violence.
In 2006, guns killed:
• 27 in Australia
• 59 in England and Wales
• 60 in Spain
• 190 in Canada
• 194 in Germany
• and 10,177 in the United States
Firearms are the second leading cause of death (after motor accidents) for people under the age of 20. Eight American children under the age of 20 are killed by guns every day.
The kids of our world know we can do better and are dying for us to do better. A few days ago, a new family moved from California into our neighborhood with a 4-year-old.
As they passed by the gun shop here in my neighborhood, the child asked, “Why is there a gun shop here when there aren’t any animals to shoot?”
A beautiful question. May that question haunt us and inspire us to transform the Jericho road, or Allegheny Avenue in Philadelphia, so that our streets look a little more like the world we all want to live in.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Shane Claiborne.
In Shane Claiborne's article he discusses the gun shops responsibility of the guns it sells. This article pertains to the second amendment because though American's have the right to own guns they should also do so responsibly. It is also the government's responsibility to regulate gun ownership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yn23wXtbw
This video discusses the uncertainity of the second amendment. The founders could have never imagine the arms created for usage today.
I believe this amendment to be both helpful and harmful to the American public. While this amendment was necessary at the beginning of our countries founding it is often misconstrude. America has a well trained and funded army, making the necessity of militias a thing of the past. And while people do deserve the right to bear arms individuals often use this amendment as a reason for unresponsible ownership.
My Take: Getting in the way of gun violence
Editor's Note: Shane Claiborne is an author and activist and an architect of Philadelphia's Simple Way community. His books include "Jesus for President" and the bestselling "Irresistible Revolution."
By Shane Claiborne, Special to CNN
Last week there were gunshots again. This time, four people were hit with bullets. One was 3 years old.
I don’t live in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a place where 5-year-olds know how to distinguish the sound of fireworks from the pops of a gunfire.
Nearly every night this week there have been gunshots. And it’s been only about six months since we heard gunshots on our street one cold February night and looked out the window to see a 19-year-old kid stumbling down the block with blood pouring out of his body. We held him, prayed with him and watched him die.
Martin Luther King, Jr. remembered the good Samaritan story in the Bible and said in effect (my paraphrase): We are all called to be the good Samaritan and lift our injured neighbor out of the ditch… but after you lift so many people out of the ditch, you start to say, maybe the whole road to Jericho needs to be re-imagined.
For over a decade in North Philly, my faith community has been actively teaching kids nonviolence rooted in the truth that it is more courageous to love our enemies than to kill them (a truth I have learned from Jesus).
And we have been trying to create jobs so that kids on corners have other options than the drug economy. But there comes a point where we start to ask deeper questions, like “where are they getting the guns?”
As we dug into that question, we began to discover that there are a handful of irresponsible gun shops that illegal guns get tracked back to.
I’ll admit, my first instinct was not to try and push for legislation and laws and regulation. That is why I was excited to learn about a “Code of Conduct” drafted by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. These are 10 steps of ethical business that several hundred mayors agreed would cut down gun violence if gun shop owners would commit to them.
We began to approach gun shop owners with an opportunity to take this step of integrity. Eventually, hundreds of folks in Philadelphia and beyond joined a movement to ask gun shop owners to sign onto this code.
Some did. In fact, the largest gun dealer in the world, Wal-Mart, signed onto the code. But some did not.
Many religious leaders in Philadelphia felt they were left with no choice but to peacefully put our bodies in the way of the trafficking of guns onto the streets, and we began holding prayer vigils outside gun shops.
In one case we had a little revival outside one of the most notorious gun shops in Philadelphia, Colosimo’s on Spring Garden Street.
About a dozen Christian clergy and other people of conscience were arrested as they did a sit-in (or a “pray-in”). In a showcase trial, they were found not guilty, and in the ensuing days the gun shop owner pleaded guilty of trafficking guns, his license was revoked, and the shop was closed down.
So miracles can happen. But I’m a strong believer that so often we wait on God, and God is waiting on us. We throw our hands in the air and say, “God why don’t you do something”… and God is saying, “I did do something … I made you."
So we have begun that same conversation with the owner of the gun shop around the corner from my house in North Philadelphia, The Shooter Shop. It was listed in a 2004 survey by Americans for Gun Safety as one of worst gun shops in America because over 200 guns used in violent crimes were tracked back to it.
Meanwhile, as we wait for the owner to agree to the code or another miracle to shut this one down, 3-year-olds are getting hit with stray bullets. Like I said, my first instinct is not legislation but to hope that gun shop owners like Mr. Haney at the Shooter Shop will let their conscience help clean up the Jericho road.
But I do wonder if there are laws that can help, sort of like guard rails on the highway. To use a hunting analogy, maybe there is no silver bullet, but there may be a silver buckshot. We need responsible teenagers, and we also need responsible gun shop owners and responsible laws.
One of the pieces of legislation that seems like a no-brainer is sometimes called the “One Handgun a Month” law, which would not get in the way of the Second Amendment right to bear arms but simply says maybe 12 guns a year are enough.
It rests on the premise that if folks are buying more than a dozen guns a year, they are probably doing something other than giving them away as Christmas presents.
The sad thing is that powerful lobbyists are against some of these sensible laws, which is why folks can still buy 50 guns at a time - some of them undoubtedly landing on the streets and killing 19-year-old kids like Papito, the kid we held back in February as he died.
We can do better. We can re-imagine together the road to Jericho. Everyone has a role to play, whether it be a Christian pacifist like myself or a responsible hunter like the “Hunters Against Gun Violence” who have been working for an end to violence on the streets.
I saw a recent study that unveiled the terrible state of our Jericho road here in the U.S. when it comes to gun violence.
In 2006, guns killed:
• 27 in Australia
• 59 in England and Wales
• 60 in Spain
• 190 in Canada
• 194 in Germany
• and 10,177 in the United States
Firearms are the second leading cause of death (after motor accidents) for people under the age of 20. Eight American children under the age of 20 are killed by guns every day.
The kids of our world know we can do better and are dying for us to do better. A few days ago, a new family moved from California into our neighborhood with a 4-year-old.
As they passed by the gun shop here in my neighborhood, the child asked, “Why is there a gun shop here when there aren’t any animals to shoot?”
A beautiful question. May that question haunt us and inspire us to transform the Jericho road, or Allegheny Avenue in Philadelphia, so that our streets look a little more like the world we all want to live in.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Shane Claiborne.
In Shane Claiborne's article he discusses the gun shops responsibility of the guns it sells. This article pertains to the second amendment because though American's have the right to own guns they should also do so responsibly. It is also the government's responsibility to regulate gun ownership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yn23wXtbw
This video discusses the uncertainity of the second amendment. The founders could have never imagine the arms created for usage today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)