Mediaboss Marketing

Who knew, with all of the pressing issues of the moment, that the 229-year-old First Amendment protection of the right to petition would become such a focus in the confirmation hearings for an open U.S. Supreme Court seat?

Whats that saying Everything old is new again?

Our core freedoms might have been plunked down in 1791 as the starter for the Bill of Rights, but those freedoms for most Americans come into play every day.

Far too many of us just take them for granted. That may account for the fact that even for Supreme Court nominee and sitting U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, petition was the freedom she forgot when she was pressed to name the five in public.

Petition is the one nicknamed by First Amendment scholars as the orphan freedom for its relative obscurity in the nations collective brain.

The 45 words and five freedoms have come up multiple times so far in the Senate judicial committee hearings on Barretts nomination.

Barretts lapse puts her in the company of an average of 96% of her fellow citizens (none of them nominated to the court, to be sure) who have been unable to identify petition as one of the five freedoms in Freedom Forum surveys taken since 1997.

It may be worth noting here that failing to name all five freedoms may well mean you flunk the test that hopeful immigrants must pass to become American citizens.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), started the whole thing by asking Barrett to name the First Five.

Sasse gets a few First Amendment bonus points for trying to help Barrett, when she asked, What am I missing? by saying the forgotten freedom was redress and protest.

In fact, the founders provided that we have the right to petition for redress of grievances. And petition is a lot more than just protest.

Not quitting when no one was ahead, Sasse then asked the nominee if she could explain why principal author of the First Amendment James Madison bundled those freedoms into one amendment. Her response: I dont know what youre getting at on that one. You mean like what is the common denominator? I dont know why, actually.

Sasse again attempted to help, and again gets mixed points for his response: You dont really have freedom of religion if you dont also have freedom

Well, that assembly freedom does apply to faiths that have congregations and a need to pass the plate to support themselves. But what about faiths that focus on the individuals right of conscience to determine their own values independent of others with no need to gather in one spot at the same time?

And of course, atheists also benefit from the First Amendments protection, in its first 16 words, of the right to freely exercise your beliefs without government interference. It would seem they rarely see a reason to assemble solely for the purpose of not worshiping.

More Sasse: You really dont have freedom of speech if you cannot publish your beliefs and advocate for them. Well, publish would implicate the amendments provision for a free press and advocate goes back to petition with a touch of assembly. But this far into the back-and-forth, hopefully we get the drift.

Finally, Sasse closes out this part of the hearing by repeating his imprecise identification of petition, saying you really dont have any of those freedoms if you cant protest at times and seek to redress grievances in times when the government oversteps and tries to curtail any of those freedoms.

The nations founders likely would applaud that analysis. In fact, many of them would put petition atop the other four freedoms, as having the ability to speak truth to power would protect the others.

Where Sasses use of protest and even redress falls short is clear when considering the range of activities covered by petition.

As detailed in a permanent Newseum exhibit in Washington D.C., beginning in 2008, the freedom also covers the work of lobbyists: Some petitioners often are paid lobbyists representing corporations or special interest groups. They try to shape policy and legislation.

But others among us also use the power of petition. The exhibit noted that in 1980, Candace Lightner, enraged that a drunken driver killed her daughter, founded the organization now known as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). The groups grassroots activism resulted in the passage of many federal and state anti-drunken driving laws.

From activists today in the streets for Black Lives Matter to those calling for an end to COVID-19 restrictions on mass gatherings and sports events or orders to wear masks in public places, as a group were petitioning the government all over the place and have been.

In this year marking the 100th anniversary of the ratification of womens right to vote, we should recall that in 1848, 32-year-old Elizabeth Cady Stanton urged a convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., to organize and petition for that right leading to the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Supporters of a popular movement called Prohibition used petition to prod Congress and the nation in 1919 to adopt the 18th Amendment and opponents used it to gain repeal of the amendment in 1933. Each year across the nation, advocates fan out to ask us to sign actual petitions favoring or opposing this or that all free from government interference, thanks to the First Amendment.

The historic examples of petition and the thousands more examples each year when we go to every level of government to directly ask for change makes it all the more disappointing that in those annual State of the First Amendment surveys by the Freedom Forum, in some years only 1% of people could identify petition.

Should you want to figuratively adopt this orphan freedom and be prepared to perhaps humble a future U.S. Supreme Court nominee, or just educate friends and family you can find information about petition and its four brethren on the Freedom Forum website.

Our nonpartisan foundation believes that encouraging the broad understanding and vigorous use of these fundamental freedoms by the people is the best way to preserve and protect the First Amendment for future generations.

We could argue that we have been a nation of petitioners even prior to the First Amendment and the nation itself.

Colonial leaders sent requests around multiple grievances before issuing the Declaration of Independence telling England and King George III in 1776 that In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Now that is speaking truth to power!

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

Go here to see the original:
We need to get a petition going to learn more about 'petition' - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era

By MICHAEL J. BROOKS / Guest Columnist

I asked a nurse if she ever grew accustomed to the gorgeous view of Birmingham from St. Vincents Hospital South Tower. She said no. I stood there for several minutes taking in the sights and remembering events of my boyhood. I grew up in the city but left after college and never moved back.

My dad was a steelworker. I remember driving over the Ensley viaduct at all hours of the day and night and seeing the blast furnaces light up the sky. And I remember the smokey haze that enveloped the western part of town, not visible now from the hospital windows. Birmingham isnt known much for steel anymore.

The steel company had a slogan in those days: Were involved. They posted a banner proclaiming this on the I-59 overpass nearest Birmingham Southern College. One morning as I drove to Samford I passed under the banner. Someone had added graffiti the night before, so it read, Were involved in polluting your environment.

One of many acts of protest in the 70s. Young people protested pollution. They talked about chemical dumping and water supply. Karen Silkwood became an icon to our generation when she publicized unsafe practices in nuclear facilities. (She was later portrayed by Meryl Streep in a 1983 film.)

The major protests I remember had to do with Vietnam. Young people took to the streets to scream at Presidents Johnson and Nixon about their roles as Commanders-in-Chief. Regrettably,numbers of our Vietnam veterans were disrespected.

I thought of all this while looking at the skyline and remembering. And I thought our country mustve survived these turbulent years. Maybe like the flag Johnny Cash used to sing about, battered but proud.

A commentator said one of the lasting images from a recent political convention was a young lady of 18, strumming a guitar and telling the nation why we were in peril if we didnt listen to her.

And she had green hair, he said, with a smile.

I dont remember green hair in the 70s, though I do remember the spirit of protest.

Our nation is strong in part because weve had the Constitutional framework of the First Amendment granting rights we didnt believe we had as British colonists. The First Amendment allows Americans to dissent, but prescribes we dissent in peace: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Apostle Paul lived in a time of social unrest. Christians began to be targeted as enemies of the republic. He counseled that we live in peace with everyone, insofar as possible (Romans 12:18). As Dr. King envisioned, all men should sit together at the table of brotherhood.

Reflections is a weekly devotional column, evangelical but non-sectarian, written by Michael J. Brooks, pastor of the Siluria Baptist Church in Alabaster. The churchs website isSiluriabaptist.com.

Read more here:
On protesting and peace - Shelby County Reporter - Shelby County Reporter

Policy requires state employees to opt in to union dues deductions annually to ensure dues are collected with voluntary waiver of First Amendment rights

Lansing, MI (October 15, 2020) A Michigan Civil Service Commission (MiCSC) policy which helps safeguard the First Amendment rights of the states workers under the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision survives after United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses abandoned their lawsuit seeking to overturn the rule in federal court.

The rule, which was adopted by MiCSC in October following detailed comments from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, requires Michigan state agencies to annually obtain the consent of state employees before deducting any union dues from their wages. The rule reminds state employees of their constitutional right to refuse such payments and ensures that the state deducts no union dues unless workers first waive their right not to pay.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented on the development:

The Civil Service Commission rules endurance is a victory for Michigan state employees, who will now have their First Amendment right to refuse to subsidize union activities respected and safeguarded. That union officials so quickly dropped their attempts to scuttle the rule speaks to the strength of the legal case for it, namely that the Supreme Court clearly delineated in Janus v. AFSCME that union dues can only be taken from public employees paychecks with their affirmative and knowing consent.

Given this example, public officials in other states should enact similar measures to protect their workers, because union bosses across the country continue to manipulate state laws and internal union policies to keep workers trapped in union payments against their will in violation of their First Amendment rights.

UAW officials abandonment of their lawsuit comes after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan rejected their request for a preliminary injunction against the rule earlier this month. Judge George Caram Steeh ruled that union lawyers not only failed to show that the rule was causing irreparable harm but that a recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals suit foreclosed union bosses ability to file one of the two claims in their suit in the first place.

The District Courts decision denying the injunction cited arguments first presented in an amicus brief from National Right to Work Foundation and Mackinac Center Legal Foundation staff attorneys, which the judge said was timely and helpful.

Other states that are taking steps to shore up their public employees Janus rights include Alaska, where Gov. Mike Dunleavy signed an executive order creating similar protections for state employees in September 2019. Also, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill both issued legal opinions earlier this year urging public employers to notify employees that they have a First Amendment right to refuse to fund a union unless they opt-in to such payments.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250 cases nationwide per year.

Continued here:
UAW Bosses Abandon Case Seeking to Overturn Civil Service Commission Rule Protecting Workers' First Amendment Janus Rights - National Right to Work...

Buzz Thomas, Guest columnist Published 7:00 p.m. ET Oct. 20, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett was nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett graduated magna cum laude from Rhodes College in 1994. Memphis Commercial Appeal

Amy Coney Barrett's belief in originalism means she interprets the words of the constitution as they were commonly understood when it was drafted.

Question: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 70?

Answer: Your Honor

My favorite lawyer joke doesnt work very well for Judge Amy Coney Barrett or any member of the U.S. Supreme Court.They are, by and large, brilliant.But brilliant eggheads Im afraid.

Most have never tried a case and dont know the first thing about how laws are actually made.They are most often drawn from the sterile halls of academia as with Judge Barrett where they have spent their careers teaching and writing about the law. Like the consultant who knows 500 ways to tie a trout fly but has never been fishing.

For 15 years, I practiced law at the nations high court. I would prepare my briefs in the small library on the top floor and can remember bumping into great jurists like Thurgood Marshall, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day OConnor. To me, the Supreme Court is Americas greatest institution with a dignity and decorum unlike the other branches of government. Which is why Americans care so much about the judicial philosophy of any new nominee to the Court.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett speaks during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington. [SUSAN WALSH/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS](Photo: Susan Walsh, AP)

Judge Barrett, like her mentor Antonin Scalia, describes herself as an originalist. That means she interprets the words of the constitution as they were commonly understood when it was drafted in 1787.So, if equal protection of the laws did not apply to women, minorities or homosexuals then, it does not apply to them now.Unless, of course, the constitution has been amended as it was in 1865 to say that African Americans could not be enslaved and in 1920 to say that women could vote.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

But gays and lesbians are left out of the American Dream in an originalists reading of the constitution, and the right to privacy (including a womans right to terminate her pregnancy) simply disappears.

The Eighth Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment would be shrunk to the size of a postage stamp since public flogging was still commonplace in the 18th century. Likewise, there would be no barrier to teaching creationism instead of science in public schools or using public funds for parochial schools since there were no public schools in 1789 when the First Amendment was drafted.

If originalist thinking had prevailed on the Court in 1954, we would still have segregated schools in the south.

Noodle on that.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Judge Barrett also describes herself as a textualist. That means she pays no attention to what a legislature was actually trying to accomplish when it passed a law but rather limits her analysis to the strict wording of the statute. Thats great if you have a bunch of geniuses working in the Congress and the legislatures across the country, but you dont. Far from it.

Buzz Thomas

For most, this isnt even their fulltime job.They are farmers, plumbers, shop owners, soccer moms. Sometimes discerning their primary reason for passing a law is the only way to make sense of the inartful language.

Remember the analogy about sausage making?Thats what the legislative process looks like.Anybody who has ever worked with a legislative body knows it.I worked on Capitol Hill, and believe me.Even the U.S. Congress can pass laws that read like they were written by a seventh grader.

Heres the thing.The framers of our constitution may have been a bunch of white, male, Protestant bigots, but they were also blithering geniuses.

Dont you think they realized they were drafting a constitution rather than a bunch of tax regulations?And that they might have been wise enough to select some incredibly broad terms like due process and equal protection for a reason? And that the reason might just be to craft a civic framework for our country that would last for the ages?

Buzz Thomas is a retired minister, constitutional lawyer and former interim superintendent of Knox County, Tennessee schools.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.knoxnews.com/story/opinion/2020/10/20/amy-coney-barrett-problem-originalist-constitutionalism/3670198001/

Go here to read the rest:
Here is the problem with Amy Coney Barrett's judicial philosophy | Opinion - Knoxville News Sentinel

After seven months in the dark, the lights will soon be back on at two Regal Cinemas and two AMC theatre locations in Western New York.

Regal Walden Galleria, Regal Quaker Crossing, AMC Market Arcade and AMC Maple Ridge 8 will reopen Friday - the first day they are permitted to operate again under new state guidelines. Governor Andrew Cuomo announced last week that movie theatres outside New York City can reopen at 25 percent capacity.

Regal locations in North Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Williamsville, along with other U.S. markets, will remain shut down due to the lack of new releases. The chain is hopeful studios will reschedule some movies that are currently on hold for release in November and December.

AMC says it will be serving guests in 44 of the 45 states where it has theatres, featuring titles such as Tenet, The War with Grandpa, Honest Thief, 2 Hearts and The Empty Man.

The property owner of Regal's Quaker Crossing location recently filed a federal lawsuit against Cuomo, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Department of Health Commissioner Howard Zucker.

In the suit, Quaker Crossing Retail Center Owner Gerry Buchheit claims the government-mandated total closure of movie theaters violates first amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and takes away private property without just compensation.

According to the lawsuit, Regal hasnt paid Quaker Crossing its monthly rent of $133,000 since March.

The rest is here:
Two Regal Cinemas, two AMC Theatres in Buffalo area to reopen this Friday - WKBW-TV