Mediaboss Marketing

James Marks

Martinsburg

In recent years I've begun to wonder how our founding fathers might have drafted the Constitution differently had they known what our country, our citizens and our politicians would have become over time. Bear in mind that our Constitution is bar none, the most perfect governmental document contrived by man in the history of planet Earth, and keeping in mind that over the last two and a half centuries, we as a nation, have grown and evolved in our wisdom and learned from our mistakes to make us a more perfect union; i.e.; amendments to that same Constitution.

One thing that comes to mind is the issue of career politicians. Putting it another way, professional politicians might more accurately describe it. Productive or not, successful in accomplishing goals for the people, or not, was that the intention of the framers of our form of government? Since the period of his terms in office of public service by Franklin Roosevelt, the 22nd Amendment not withstanding, and up through occurrences more recently, it isn't uncommon for public servants to remain in office for multiple decades. This immediately bring to mind Joe Biden, now serving almost a half a century! Reflecting on President Washington's thoughts on a third term...he stepped aside to make way for a successor, proving to future generations (and his contemporary critics) his commitment to democracy rather than power. All this in remembering that initially Washington was a farmer, turned general, turned President! In lieu of present trends, I wonder if the framers might have contemplated term limits. I would doubt it considering the vast majority of Congressmen had to maintain their jobs outside of their congressional duties, so being full time politicians would have been out of the question, but I still would make one wonder.

A second thought is on how the creators of our nation might have looked on their first Amendment to our Constitution, more specifically the aspect of Freedom of the Press. Certainly there were contentious articles published in newspapers in the late 1700's and early 1800's to spark debate and maybe even dissension. Bringing that forward to today's journalistic environment and calling it contentious or debatable would be a momentous understatement. In America's press today, blatant disregard for honesty, the truth and facts are the rule, not the exception. Politically motivated, distorted and biased, and total untruths in the characterizing of facts, of quotes from words spoken, and of outcomes of actions taken by political officials is now the norm in America's press today. The Associated Press even more so exacerbates the issue. Have the printed word, radio broadcasts and television news reporting outlets not become the mouthpiece and literally an extension of a political party? And of course over time, this has been compounded and multiplied exponentially by the advent of radio and television, not to mention social media and the cell phone. And unlike the press of our colonial and founding period, the spewing of truths made into lies and lies into truth throughout media today is an occurrence on a moment by moment event that is immediately disseminated to millions of citizens. Maybe our founding fathers in their thoughts on the printing of untruths and non-facts, instituted the 1st Amendment with the thought being if given enough rope, they will hang themselves, proverbially speaking. Time will tell, I guess. But I do have to wonder had they known then what occurs today, would they have considered limits and boundaries on those freedoms, commensurate with the degree of honesty, accuracy, and the truthfulness of the articles they would present to the public?

How often today do we watch and listen to a news broadcast reported to us, particularly on a national issue, and think to ourselves, how can they be reporting that, when we know full well it to be untrue? How frequently do we open the newspaper to read an Associated Press article on the Peaceful Protest in a given metropolitan city, where in fact, a violent mob has destroyed property and peoples lives, and we are fully aware it is totally untrue, nonfactual, a blatant lie?

I reflect from the 1960's on my memory of Pravda (the Communist News Agency, i.e. propaganda machine) on how some news/information was revealed on a given subject that was so filled with untruths that it was literally comical, were it not on a subject of grave consequences. And now in today's context of what is offered up as news is so flagrantly deceitful, it is beyond comical and fringes on infuriating! My bet is that our founders are rolling over in their graves when it comes to the freedoms they have provided in this aspect of their and our First Amendment.

View original post here:
Had our Founding Fathers known then what we know now - Martinsburg Journal

The Ball State University Department of Journalism recently honored Steve Key, executive director and general counsel at Hoosier State Press Association (HSPA), for his support of journalism and the First Amendment. He was chosen for the 2020 Indiana Journalism Award.

Keys advocacy on behalf of professional and student journalists has significantly advanced the First Amendment and journalism in Indiana, said Johnny Sparks, Department of Journalism chair. Through his work with HSPA and his additional activities as a legal consultant, who fields hundreds of inquiries from local newspapers and officials each year, Keys work continues improving Hoosiers lives through supporting strong professional journalism.

Keys acceptance remarks encouraged students to focus on their journalistic responsibilities of fairness and honesty in all personal and professional matters. He also stressed the significance of local journalism in democracy.

Its the local newspaper that covers the county commissioner, city council and school board. Its the newspaper that covers local events that create the social fabric of the community. If the community loses its connection its newspaper, it loses its eyes on government and the reassuring voice to each other.

In 2008, Key received the Excellence in Public Information and Education (2008) Award from the Indiana Judges Association. The Indiana High School Press Association recognized Key with the Louis Ingelhart Friend of Journalism Award in 2010.

First awarded in 1965, the Indiana Journalism Award recognizes outstanding achievements by journalists in the Hoosier state.

Continuing a 60-year legacy of honoring international leaders in journalism and strategic communication, the Department of Journalism recognized Key and nine other outstanding alumni and professionals in a virtual awards ceremony on December 1.

Other award recipients include:

Watch the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-l2e3dHCd8&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0JbCyy_FPdudFyOyRMQfeWPZqZhR_WUFrCExTKQvDUvag84jmRtlYZByA

Originally posted here:
Ball State honors HSPA executive director for his advocacy to the journalism profession - Ball State University News

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, more First Amendment challenges to pandemic-related restrictions and whether a criminal defendant can open the door to rebuttal testimony that otherwise would violate the Sixth Amendment.

Two petitions from churches bring First Amendment claims against state restrictions related to the coronavirus pandemic. In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, a Nevada church is challenging Gov. Steve Sisolaks series of executive orders limiting church gatherings. For example, one directive subjected casinos, restaurants, indoor amusements parks, bowling alleys, water parks, pools, arcades and more to a 50% fire-code-capacity limit, but limited places of worship to no more than 50 people, whatever their facilities size. A new directive has superseded that one, but, according to the church, still treats places of worship less well than their secular counterparts. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, a California church brings a petition directly from the district court that challenges Gov. Gavin Newsoms Blueprint for a Safer Economy. Earlier this year, in two separate orders, the Supreme Court declined to grant emergency relief to the Nevada church and the California church while the litigation proceeded in the lower courts. Now the churches are asking the justices to take up the cases on the merits.

Rules of evidence protect criminal defendants from certain types of evidence in the prosecutions case-in-chief, such as evidence of a defendants violent character. However, a defendant who takes the stand and testifies to having a peaceful character opens the door to rebuttal evidence. Hemphill v. New York asks the justices to decide whether a defendant can similarly open the door to rebuttal evidence that was previously inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a criminal defendants right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

In Darrell Hemphills trial, defense counsel elicited testimony that police had found a 9 millimeter handgun, the kind of gun that killed a girl in a car passing by a fight, on a different suspects nightstand hours after the shooting. In response, the prosecution introduced that other suspects statement from an earlier plea allocution that he had a .357 revolver with him at the fight, not a 9 millimeter. The Sixth Amendment would normally require the prosecution to produce the other suspect at trial so that defense counsel could cross-examine him. However, the trial court let in the statement because Hemphill had opened the door to this evidence by creating the impression that the other suspect had the 9 millimeter. Arguing that lower courts are split on whether defendants can forfeit confrontation rights in this way, Hemphill asks the justices to review the New York Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court and to rule that the statements admission violated the Sixth Amendment.

These and otherpetitions of the weekare below:

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety20-603Issue: Whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its constitutional war powers.

Gannett Co. v. Quatrone20-609Issue: Whether a plaintiff adequately pleads breach of the duties of prudence and diversification solely by alleging that fiduciaries permitted participants in a defined contribution plan to choose, from an adequately diversified menu of investment options, to invest in an undiversified single-stock fund.

Amazon.com Inc. v. Rittmann20-622Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Acts exemption for classes of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce prevents the acts application to local transportation workers who, as a class, are not engaged to transport goods or passengers across state or national boundaries.

Hemphill v. New York20-637Issue: Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant, whose argumentation or introduction of evidence at trial opens the door to the admission of responsive evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence, also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the confrontation clause.

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak20-639Issues: (1) Whether Nevada Governor Steve Sisolaks favoring of secular over religious gatherings for example, under Directive 021, casinos, restaurants, indoor amusements parks, bowling alleys, water parks, pools, arcades and more are subject to a 50-percent fire-code-capacity limit, but places of worship are limited to no more than 50 people, whatever their facilities size violates the free exercise clause; and (2) whether the governors favoring of secular over religious gatherings violates the free speech and assembly clauses.

LSP Transmission Holdings, LLC v. Sieben20-641Issue: Whether a state law that grants an express preference to entities with an existing in-state presence to build facilities serving a distinctly interstate market discriminates against interstate commerce, notwithstanding that a few of the preferred in-state incumbents are headquartered elsewhere.

Cook Childrens Medical Center v. T.L.20-651Issue: Whether, despite the lack of any state involvement, participation, coercion, input or control of any kind, a private hospital is nevertheless a state actor because state law creates a safe harbor for those who conduct a private internal review to determine private medical care in a private facility.

Employer Solutions Staffing Group, LLC v. Scalia20-660Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Courts willfulness standard, which requires a showing that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute, may be satisfied merely by a showing that a non-compliant employer was on notice of its general requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act but had no actual knowledge of or reason to believe that it was not complying with any requirement of the FLSA; (2) whether the Employer Solutions Staffing Group was liable for overtime wages when there was no evidence that they knew or should have known that overtime wages were not properly being paid by a low-level employee; and (3) whether the Employer Solutions Staffing Group may seek contribution under the FLSA from other joint-employers for joint and several liability for an overtime wage award.

South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom20-746Issues: (1) Whether California Governor Gavin Newsoms lockdown orders and reopening restrictions under the Blueprint framework, placing strict limitations, including closures, on all places of worship in California, violates South Bays First Amendment right to free exercise of religion; and (2) whether strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for challenges to state and county restrictions upon free-exercise-of-religion rights during a pandemic, or whetherJacobson v. Massachusettsimposes extra limitations to the Supreme Courts established line of free-exercise jurisprudence during a pandemic.

Posted in Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, Gannett Co. v. Quatrone, Amazon.com Inc. v. Rittmann, Hemphill v. New York, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, LSP Transmission Holdings, LLC v. Sieben, Cook Childrens Medical Center v. T.L., Employer Solutions Staffing Group, LLC v. Scalia, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, Featured, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the week: Re-opening church doors and opening evidentiary doors, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 11, 2020, 4:45 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/petitions-of-the-week-re-opening-church-doors-and-opening-evidentiary-doors/

Here is the original post:
Petitions of the week: Re-opening church doors and opening evidentiary doors - SCOTUSblog

In July, by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court rejected the petition of a Nevada church seeking to overturn the governors 50-person limit on attendance at religious services. Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. Justice Alito dissented on the grounds that the governors order violated the First Amendment right to worship by allowing more people to gamble in casinos than to pray in church.

This was the second case dealing with state-imposed limitations on church service attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first was a California challenge to Gov. Gavin Newsoms order limiting houses of worship to 25 percent of capacity but not more than 100 attendees. The lineup of justices was the same, with the chief justice writing for the five-member majority. He explained that the California restrictions on church attendance were equivalent to those on comparable secular gatherings such as lectures, concerts and sports events. As such, he wrote, they were consistent with religious freedom under the First Amendment.

The chief justice stressed that when it comes to public health, an unelected federal judiciary lacks the necessary scientific expertise and should not second-guess those who are responsible for protecting the public. He cited a 1905 case called Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where the court upheld a Cambridge, Mass., ordinance requiring smallpox vaccinations.

In his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh asked, Why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew, or safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister? He suggested that the state could have taken other means, for example requiring social distancing, or imposing reasonable occupancy caps across the board.

Policy disagreements can rarely be solved by asking questions, and that is especially true here. When I walk through the grocery store, I keep on going and exit as fast as I can. If I enter a church or synagogue, I dont walk down a pew, I sit on it for an extended period of time. I have no idea what my encounters with a brave delivery person have to do with interactions with a stoic clergyman. More often than not, UPS or FedEx just leaves the package at the door.

Justice Alito didnt take those decisions lying down. He devoted much of his Nov. 12, 2020, Federalist Society speech to his concern that religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right. In language sounding a lot like his late colleague, Justice Scalia, he pointed out that you will not find a craps clause or a blackjack clause or a slot machine clause in the First Amendment. And Alito criticized Robertss reliance on the Jacobson case. Im all in favor of preventing dangerous things from issuing out of Cambridge and infecting the rest of the country, he said. It would be good if what originates in Cambridge stayed in Cambridge.

Justice Ginsburg, who voted with the majority in both the Nevada and California cases, died on Sept. 18, 2020, exactly halfway between the Nevada ruling and the New York case that was to come in late November. During the interim, on Oct. 27, 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as Ginsburgs successor.

The Nevada and California cases are so yesterday, and so is Chief Justice Roberts. On Nov. 25, 2020, in a case called Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor, the court meaning a majority of five agreed with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, an organization of Haredi Orthodox Jews featured in last years Netflix series Unorthodox. The court enjoined the enforcement of Gov. Cuomos 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on houses of worship located in red and orange zones.

Justice Gorsuch, now in the majority, expressed his concern (among others) that the governors order would cause irreparable harm to Orthodox Jewish women. Orthodox Judaism requires 10 men for a minyan (the quorum for Jewish public worship), he explained, so those women might be unable to attend Shabbat (Sabbath) services. He then had what is likely the last word: Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.

The constitutional issue raised by these state-imposed church attendance quotas is what lawyers call a close question on which reasonable people can take either side. But while slogans such as no blackjack clause and no sabbatical may make good reading, they dont necessarily make good law, or for that matter good epidemiology. To be sure, the New York facts are not identical to the Nevada or California facts, but the differences are not enough to account for a different outcome.

And there is something unseemly about the Supreme Court going one way in the spring and the opposite way in the fall. During a public health crisis, when so much responsibility rests on the shoulders of governors and local health officials, there is something to be said for stability in the law.

The reason for this flip-flop isnt hard to find, and Justice Alito need not worry that the constitutional right to worship will be disfavored. The game has changed, and Amy Coney Barrett, a product not of Cambridge but of Notre Dame, Ind., is the game-changer.

Read more from the original source:
Religion and the Supreme Court during the pandemic - The Keene Sentinel

Beth Treffeisen|Cape Cod Times

SANDWICH In the early afternoon, before Sandwich Special Town meeting was set to begin at the high school, members of the environmental group Sustainable Practices were asked by a police officer to move their signs and displays so they were 150 feet from the school entrance.

The request to movewas made by Selectman Robert George, becausehe thought it was the law.

However, the 150-foot law only applies to polling places, not town meetings, according to the Secretary of State's website and the Sandwich TownClerk.

After learning that members of Sustainable Practices were wrongly moved before last month's meeting, members Mary Cote and Jacob Swenson demandedGeorgeapologize for his action, saying his failure to abideby the law isgroundsforhim to resign or be removed from his elected position.

What he did to me was a blatant abuse of power, Mary Cote wrote in a letter to the Selectmen. He took away my right.

Cote and other members of the group filed a complaint about the incident with the Attorney Generals office.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE TIMES

Town Clerk Taylor White was made aware of the situation after the special town meeting ended.He said he thinks Georgemisunderstood the law.

Typically before a town meeting, there is a gauntlet of people made up of political candidates and groups vying for the voters' attention standing near the entrance of the meeting venue.

In this case, about150 people attended the Nov. 14 special town meeting and members from the Sustainable Practices were the only group outside, other than a bake sale that was going on, Taylor said.

There is a gentlemens agreementunder whichpeople have been asked to make enough space for people to enter the meeting without being delayed, White said.

At the Board of Selectmen meeting Thursday, George saidhe might have had the wrong information and will check on the law.

You see it time and time again that people just jam the front of the school at town meeting, George said during the meeting. I will find out if I was misled and if I was I will publicly apologize to them.

As of Friday, Cote still had not received an apology from George.

Board of Selectmen members said they will ask town counsel for further clarification.

Selectmen David Sampson said he didnt think the folks who stand outside town meeting are changing the minds of the voters.

I think they are taking the opportunity to get their message out, Sampson said.Ive never seen anyone outside obstructing the access, which is really the most important thing.

Voters at the special town meeting indefinitely postponed the petition article put forth by Sustainable Practices to ban commercial plastic water bottles. The group plans to bring the petition back for a vote at the spring town meeting. Similar articles have passed in eight other Cape towns.

The fact that it was deferred and not voted down, shows that people know it is the right thing to do but for whatever reason they were not ready yet, Cote said Friday.

A seasoned environmental activist, Cote said she was unsure if the pressure to move her group's display further from the entrance prevented them from getting their message across to voters.

Moving the group may have delegitimized Sustainable Practices cause and made it more difficult for them to talk to voters, Swenson wrote in an email to the Select Board.

Bobby George was wrong to all of this, Swenson wrote. He violated the first amendment rights of these citizens and blatantly abused his power.

Contact Beth Treffeisen at btreffeisen@capecodonline.com. Follow her on Twitter @BTreffeisenCCT

See the original post:
Environmental group wrongly asked to move 150 feet away from town meeting entrance - Cape Cod Times