Mediaboss Marketing

The Third Amendment has minimal significance in modern times. Nonetheless, it clearly has implications and should be historically considered.

Paul G. Summers| Guest Columnist

This day in history: Congress adopts the stars and stripes

On June 14, 1777, the basic design for the American flag was adopted at the Continental Congress during the American Revolution.

Associated Press, Associated Press

Editor's note:This is a regular feature on issues related to the Constitution and civicswritten by Paul G. Summers,retired judge and state attorney general.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of America. Amendments are part of the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments, or Bill of Rights, were submitted to the state legislatures in September 1789. The Bill of Rights was ratified in December 1791.

Amendment Three to the United States Constitution restricts the quartering of soldiers in peoples houses without the consent of the owner. This applies during peacetime. Congress can prescribe by law the manner in which soldiers may be quartered during wartime.

Amendment III: 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.

British Parliament once enacted what was labeled the Quartering Acts. American colonies were required to pay the costs of British soldiers who served in the colonies. If barracks did not have sufficient space or room, the colonists must lodge troops in livery stables, inns, and similar places.

The Quartering Act of 1774 provided that colonists might have to house soldiers wherever necessary, including private houses. This mandate of quartering soldiers was one of the grievances provided in the Declaration of Independence of 1776.

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

Sign up for Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee.

Sign up for Black Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee.

The Third Amendment has minimal significance in modern times. Nonetheless, it clearly has implications and should be historically considered.

It is arguable that few, if any, Supreme Court decisions specifically address the issue. This amendment establishes an individuals right to domestic privacy.

The people are protected against government intrusion in their homes and places in peacetime and wartime, with conditions. Be mindful that these are arguments, not Court decisions. The quartering of soldiers was a complaint or grievance of colonists which predicated our Declaration of Independence against Great Britain. It was an issue of great importance to colonists in 1776.

The Constitution and Amendments are the supreme law of the land. Our Constitution supersedes states constitutions and statutes, even federal statutes and acts. The judicial branch, headed by the U. S. Supreme Court, is the independent branch of our federal government. Judges decide controversies on the rule of law. They act as checks and balances on abuse of power by any of the branches, whether by act or action. They interpret what our Constitution says. The Supreme Courts interpretation in a case or controversy is final.

We shall continue in a future article with the Fourth Amendment. Studying the Constitution is time well spent.

Paul G. Summers is a lawyer. He is a former appellate and senior judge, district attorney general, and the Attorney General of Tennessee. Raised in Fayette County, Judge Summers resides in Holladay and Nashville.

Read the original:
Why Founding Fathers passed the Third Amendment to the ... - Tennessean

Dr Naazir Mahmood

IN 2023, Pakistan is marking 50 years of the 1973 Constitution that has experienced many mutilations at the hands of both civil and military rulers. Having remained in abeyance a couple of times the constitution has survived all the vagaries in the past half century. Here we discuss some of the Amendments that have had an impact on the Constitutional and judicial history of Pakistan. It is interesting to note that the first seven amendments that Prime Minister Z A Bhutto introduced from 1974 to 1977 paved the way for further mutilations of the constitutions in the years to come.

Just to cite one example, the ban on the National Awami Party (NAP) in 1975 the Bhutto government had planned much earlier by introducing certain Constitutional amendments to pave the way for the dissolution of NAP. The First and the Second Amendments to the 1973 Constitution came about in 1974. The First Amendment recognized Bangladesh, and the Second declared Ahmadies as non-Muslims. By amending Article 1 of the Constitution in April 1974, the parliament of the rump Pakistan deleted any mention to the erstwhile eastern wing of the country East Pakistan. February 1975 was an eventful month; the National Assembly passed a bill for terrorism trials by special courts. The situation became clear on February 8 when senior PPP leader Hayat Mohammad Khan Sherpao who was also a former governor of the NWFP (now KP) lost his life in an attack in Peshawar and within a week the government banned NAP and declared it as an illegal party.

The Bhutto government introduced the Third Amendment to the Constitution curtailing the right of the detainees, and extending the powers of the detaining authorities. The new chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was Justice Yaqoob Ali who took his oath of office on 1 Nov 1975, and the same month the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution curtailed the jurisdiction of courts. This amendment also limited the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199 in cases of preventive detentions. Now the courts could not grant bail to a person, or prohibit such detention.

In September 1976, the Bhutto government passed the Fifth Constitutional Amendment widening the scope of restrictions on courts. The period of separation of judiciary from the executive increased from three to five years. Maximum tenure of the chief justices of the Supreme Court and high courts also became fixed as five and four years respectively. Now high courts could not issue any order subject to the article 175 (2) and 199 of the constitution. The government could transfer the judges of the high courts without their consent to another high court, and that too without giving any reason.

The Bhutto government introduced its penultimate amendment in Dec 1976: the Sixth Amendment during the last session before the general elections. The main content of the amendment was about extension in the tenure of chief justices of the Supreme Court and High Courts beyond the retirement age of 65 and 62 respectively. This amendment specifically gave a chance to Chief Justice Yaqoob Ali to continue after his superannuation in mid-1977, as he had not completed his term in office for five years. Now through the sixth amendment, chief justices of the Supreme Court and high court could complete five and four years of tenure even if they got past the superannuation age of 65 and 62 respectively.

Z A Bhutto introduced the Seventh Amendment in May 1977. It had a provision for a referendum because Bhutto did not want any reelection after the opposition rejected the results of March 1977 general elections. He wanted to hold a referendum so that people could once again demonstrate confidence in him.He could neither hold a referendum nor a reelection as the army chief General Zia toppled him in a bloodless coup on July 5, 1977 and suspended the Constitution. In March 1985, General Zia issued Presidential Order (PO 14 of 1985) as the Revival of the Constitution Order (RCO 1985) with which he made a large number of amendments in the Constitution.

This would later provide the backbone to the Eight Constitutional Amendment. The dictator appointed M K Junejo as the prime minister of Pakistan who received a vote of confidence in the last week of March 1985. Gen Zia reportedly threatened that if the bill were not to go through, he would consider the possibility of dissolving the National Assembly and send everything packing once again. The MNAs did not want to face that eventuality at the hand of the general. By October, the Eight Amendment was ready for approval in the Constitution which incorporated it in November 1985.

The Ninth Amendment Bill got stuck with a Select Committee of the National Assembly and it could not progress to change the constitution. The National Assembly passed the 10th Constitutional Amendment in March 1987 to reduce the duration of the interval between sessions of the National Assembly and the Senate from 160 days to 130 days. In the third year of his premiership, M K Junejo became increasingly assertive, much to the chagrin of General Zia who dismissed him in May 1988. Three month later Gen Zia died in a plane crash in August 1988.

By the end of 1988, Benazir Bhutto aged 35 had become the youngest prime minister in the countrys history and the first leader in the Muslim world. The opposition members in the Senate of Pakistan presented the 11th Constitutional Amendment in 1989 to restore the seats of women in the National Assembly to 20. The PPP government should have approved of it but perhaps it did not want the opposition to get the credit so Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto gave an assurance that the PPP government would introduce the same bill on its own.

The first Nawaz Sharif government introduced the 12th Constitutional Amendment in July 1991 to establish Speedy Courts for the trial of dreadful offences for three years. The Amendment also raised the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. In April 1997, the second Nawaz Sharif government moved and passed in minutes the 13th Constitutional Amendment by relaxing the usual rules to pass such amendments. This amendment undid the powers of the president including 58-2 (b) but there were no changes related to the religious contents of the Eight Amendment.

It is wrong to assume that the 13th Amendment actually removed the Eight Amendment, it simply reduced the power of the president of Pakistan and transferred them to the prime minister.It stripped the president of Pakistan of his power to dissolve the National Assembly and call for new elections or to dismiss the prime minister. Just three months after the 13th amendment, in July 1997 the second Nawaz-Sharif government introduced the 14th Amendment which subjected members of parliament to fairly strict party discipline by giving party leaders unlimited authority to dismiss legislators who failed to vote per the direction of the party head.

In 1998, the Nawaz Sharif government introduced the 15th Amendment bill to the Constitution of Pakistan which got through the National Assembly in August but when it moved to the Senate it could not get approval before the coup of General Musharraf. The proposed 15th amendment included the addition of a new article 2B in the Constitution and an amendment to the Article 239. It sought to impose Sharia Law as supreme law in Pakistan in accordance with the Objectives Resolution of Pakistan that Gen Zia had incorporated into the main constitution.

The 16th Amendment passed in August 1999, increased the validity of quota system from 20 to 40 years. Ultimately, the 13th and the 14th amendments could not save the prime minister when he tried to remove the Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf in Oct 1999. To summarize, during the first 26 years of the Constitution of Pakistan there were in all 13 approved amendments; and three proposed amendments that could not pass through both houses. Of the 13 amendments passed, seven were in the first five years under the Z A Bhutto government from 1972 to 1977.

The Eight amendment that Gen Zia introduced and imposed, was the most devastating that severely hampered the progress of democracy in the country and devoured four elected national assemblies. Benazir Bhutto during her two governments that lasted for less than five years combined did not pass any amendment. Whereas Nawaz Sharif managed to pass the 12th Amendment during his first government and the 13th, 14th, and 16th amendments during the second government from 1997 to 1999.

[emailprotected] @NaazirMahmood

Excerpt from:
The journey of the Constitution - Pakistan Observer

Last month, the City of McMinnville was dropped as a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit. The suit alleged excessive force, false arrest and unreasonable seizure associated with the incident and requested $500,000 from Colwell and $500,000 from McMinnville. The suit arose from an incident involving former McMinnville Police Officer Justin Colwell. Colwell, who currently works at the Warren County Sheriff's Department, is alleged to have handcuffed a Black man in his own yard while responding to a call regarding a woman suspected to be involved in a domestic incident.

In March, an unopposed motion by plaintiff David J. Martin dismissed the City of McMinnville from the suit. Bailey Barnes and Michael Galligan are representing Martin with Cassandra Crane representing Officer Colwell. Daniel Rader, IV represented the City of McMinnville until it was removed from the suit last month in an unopposed motion. Rader said the city did not settle and was voluntarily dropped from the suit. The $1 million lawsuit was initially filed Feb. 23, 2022.

The suit references the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 which it says serves a critical, necessary purpose in protecting the essential interests and basic humanity of citizens who have been deprived of constitutional or statutory rights by those acting under color of state law.

Martins suit looks to the judicial system as is his right under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983, to shield him from abuse when the state is unwilling or unable to do so on its own."

In a filing from April 11, 2022, the City of McMinnville took offense to the mention of the KKK saying it was solely to create a salacious perception by the public at large or within the news media, and not for any legitimate legal purpose.

Martin alleges Officer Colwell used excessive force and violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure when Martin was allegedly painfully and tightly handcuffed in the back of a squad car on his own property. Colwell claims he was operating on reasonable suspicion (a lower bar to prove than probable cause) when he made a Terry stop, detaining Martin because he refused to respond to basic questions regarding the domestic incident Colwell was called to the area for.

In Colwells response to the suit he said he felt Martin had seemingly implicated he was involved by asserting his Fifth Amendment right. McMinnvilles position was the city is not vicariously responsible for the conduct of Officer Colwell.

Colwells defense is he was conducting a Terry stop but may not have met the conditions for a lawful one. In Terry v. Ohio it was ruled that if an officer believes the suspect is armed based on experience and knowledge they may conduct a limited search for weapons. In Floyd v. The City of New York, courts held that a Terry stop was not constitutional as it was being used as a pretext for racial profiling. Only a non-invasive examination of the exterior clothing layer is considered lawful even in jurisdictions, like Tennessee, where a Terry stop is not considered an illegal stop-and-frisk.

Martin was in his own yard, shirtless and wearing flip flops according to Galligan, which may make Colwells defense hard to prove. Colwells defense hinges on being able to prove reasonable suspicion that Martin was armed and dangerous and/or in commission of a crime or that hes shielded by qualified immunity due to his position as a law enforcement officer.

Martin, who is in his 60s, made a complaint to the McMinnville Police Department about pain in his ankle from a prior injury and pain from allegedly being aggressively handcuffed, causing his hands to swell in pain.

McMinnville Police Department conducted an internal affairs investigation and determined Colwell followed departmental protocols. This is despite the fact that Colwell had been warned about not wearing a body-worn camera and not using a dashcam. A recurring disciplinary issue that is uncontested is that Colwell allegedly had a habit of not following department policy regarding dashcam and body-worn cameras. No bodycam or dashcam footage of the interaction with Martin is available as a result of this lapse.

Sgt. Joseph Butler was instructed to inform Colwell, who admitted he often didnt wear a body-worn camera, to begin doing so. The suit alleges that Sgt. Justin Shrum ordered Butler to take a body camera to Colwell. McMinnville claimed the reason Colwell still didnt have a bodycam or dashcam operating was because of a miscommunication and due to an equipment shortage. The bodycam should have been received by Colwell about a month before the incident with Martin.

In its response, McMinnville did not deny the prior incident described but argued the statute of limitations had passed, disparaging the claim as an attempt to try an entirely separate, distinct and unrelated incident.

Colwell admitted taking off his badge during a previous incident which resulted in a write-up: I will not let suspects or the public get under my skin. The previous incident occurred in June 2020. Colwell responded to a call regarding a suspect who had recently received major back surgery and had a rod put in their back. The suit alleges the rod in the suspects back resulted in them needing a walker for mobility which made performing a field sobriety test difficult. Colwell searched the suspect and found a pill in their pocket, asked them to have a seat in the squad car and, when they didnt get in the back seat quickly enough due to their mobility issues, Colwell allegedly used force to push the suspect into the back seat.

Things continued to verbally escalate with the suspect at one point calling Colwell fat which sparked an expletive-laden response from Colwell who allegedly threatened to kill the suspect. Colwell admits to having taken his badge off during the exchange. McMinnville Police Department did not require Colwell to attend any sort of de-escalation or anger management classes.

The trial itself is set for Oct. 17, 2023 at 10 a.m. and is expected to take three to four days to complete. Colwells lawyer, Crane, responded to a request for comment: Mr. Colwell vehemently denies any wrongdoing in this case. I am unable to comment further on pending litigation.

See the rest here:
Former MPD officer sued - McMinnville - Southern Standard

On March 7, a bipartisan group of 13 senators, including Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), introduced the RESTRICT Act in Congress amid concerns from some lawmakers that the popular social media app TikTok could be used by the Chinese government to spy on Americans. If signed into law, the RESTRICT Act could potentially ban TikTok in the United States.

Since the bill was first introduced, several viral social media posts have claimed that the RESTRICT Act could also give the U.S. government access to Americans personal data from their home devices, such as Ring security cameras, Amazon Echo and Google Nest.

this is way worse than I thought #gaming #savetiktok #tiktokban #restrictact #tech #techeducation

Would the RESTRICT Act give the federal government access to data from your home devices?

No, the RESTRICT Act would not give the federal government access to data from your home devices

Sign up for the VERIFY Fast Facts daily Newsletter!

The RESTRICT Act would not give the federal government access to the personal data found on individual Americans home security or smart devices, according to both the bills sponsor and critics of the legislation. Instead, the act allows the government to investigate potential national security threats by analyzing foreign-owned technology companies, not individual users in the U.S., whose data is protected by the Constitution.

Many of the viral social media posts that have shared this claim focus on Section 5 of the RESTRICT Act. According to the bills text, Section 5 directs the Secretary of Commerce to review wireless networks, various access points, cloud storage and other types of technology that were made by countries that the U.S. considers to be foreign adversaries, such as China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, to ensure it is not being used to spy on Americans or steal their data.

If the Secretary of Commerce determines the technology does threaten national security, then the bill says Congress must be publicly notified. Lawmakers could then decide to impose privacy or corporate transparency requirements on the specific product or ban it altogether.

In an email, a spokesperson from Sen. Mark Warners office told VERIFY that the claims in regard to the federal government having access to Americans home devices are false. On March 31, Warner also addressed some of what he calls misconceptions about the RESTRICT Act in a thread on Twitter.

This bill doesnt give the government any power to track what youre searching! In fact, it is aimed at COUNTERING foreign surveillance from authoritarian nations, Warner said. This bill takes on big, systemic threats to our national security not individual users.

Even organizations that oppose the bill, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), agree that the RESTRICT Act would not give the government access to Americans private data on their home devices.

Is the RESTRICT Act a surveillance bill that would allow the government access to your devices? Not exactly, the EFF wrote in an April 4 report about the bill.

EFF explains that under the RESTRICT Act, the Secretary of Commerce could demand information from a company owned by a foreign adversary if they are under investigation. That company could be required to share some user data with certain government entities. But the EFF says there are some important confidentiality requirements protecting this type of data.

The ACLU also told VERIFY that the Fourth Amendment already protects most Americans personal information from the federal government.

As of April 7, Congress has not taken any action toward passing the RESTRICT Act since it was introduced in March. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco have endorsed the bill.

The VERIFY team works to separate fact from fiction so that you can understand what is true and false. Please consider subscribing to our daily newsletter, text alerts and our YouTube channel. You can also follow us on Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. Learn More

Text: 202-410-8808

Read more from the original source:
No, the RESTRICT Act wouldnt give the government access to data from your home devices - WCNC.com

Washinton, DC, has been accused of using unconstitutional and discriminatory tactics to enforce its gun laws.

Last week, a federal judge ruled a class-action suit against city officials over alleged targeting of Black men in poorer sections of the city for unwarranted scrutiny can move forward. The lawsuit claims police would use pre-texts to stop the men without probable cause to believe theyd committed a crime and then search them without permission or a warrant. This was all done in pursuit of getting guns off the street.

Its a familiar story. Infamously, Michael Bloomberg instituted an even more aggressive version of this stop and frisk strategy during his time as New York City mayor. At least until it was ruled unconstitutional for targeting minorities. The scandal surrounding Baltimore, Marylands Gun Trace Taskforce reached new lows using similar methods, combined with outright corruption, in their own pursuit of racking up gun seizures.

But these enforcement schemes all have something in common beyond a blatant disregard for the Fourth Amendment rights of their victims: theyre the result of gun laws that are nearly impossible for many to actually comply with.

And thats no coincidence. Its the intended design of many of the laws in question. But its also the part of the story that often goes unexamined.

Understandably, a lot has been made about the uneven nature of enforcement in these situations. However, there is little discussion of how the strict gun laws being enforced create incentives for unfair enforcement, often against people who arent actually dangerous.

Take the gun-carry laws of Baltimore and New York when stop and frisk and the Gun Trace Taskforce were at their height. Both had particularly onerous may-issue permitting laws. That meant it was nearly impossible for anyone who wasnt wealthy or connected enough to obtain a permit to legally carry a gun since officials could, and almost always did, reject applicants for any reason they saw fit.

So, most normal people couldnt legally carry a gun on them.

At the same time, officials and police want to reduce gun crime. So, they focus resources on low-income neighborhoods where gun crimes happen most.

Naturally, residents of those areas are often highly-motivated to carry a gun for their protection. But, since its impossible to do so legally, many choose to do so illegally.

Inevitably, these competing incentives result in the arrests of many people who may not be dangerous. When combined with a view from officials that anyone with a gun was a potential threat to the community, which was often the case, the ends for getting any and all firearms off the streets are viewed as justifying the means by which thats accomplished.

This all remains true even in DC, where the courts have forced them to adopt a shall issue permitting regime. Because even though officials cant reject applicants for any reason they want anymore, the city has adopted an application process that costs hundreds of dollars and takes upwards of six months to complete. And it combined that with a mountain of restrictions on where you can carry, including a prohibition on all public transit.

The result is a process that is possible to complete but highly impractical for those same residents who live in low-income, high-crime sections of the city.

Of course, due to factors stretching back generations, those areas are generally minority neighborhoods. Thus, even though officials and officersmany of whom are themselves minoritiesarent trying to enforce laws in a racially discriminatory way, thats the result regardless. And, as New York public defenders argued in Bruen, it means that many urban minorities routinely have their Second Amendment rights violated.

In fact, DCs current permitting system may make enforcement even more inequitable. At least before it was nearly impossible for anyone to get a permit. Now, the onerous but completable process makes it more likely that affluent applicants will have the time, money, and mobility to get approved. Their less-affluent neighbors are less likely to do so.

That means areas of the city where people are illegally carrying a gun, whether to further a criminal act or just to protect themselves without first obtaining a permit, will skew even more toward poor, minority neighborhoods. Ensuring police prioritize protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of all city residents will go a long way to offsetting that outcome. But it probably wont solve the problem in the long term.

The reality is that making it extremely difficult for law-abiding residents of any income level to legally defend themselves will always result in some people who arent a danger to the community.

View original post here:
Analysis: How Strict Enforcement of Strict Gun Laws Begets ... - The Reload