The ACRU Blog

Here's my latest article at Forbes:

The promises made by our current Federal entitlement programs would require Federal taxes and spending to double by 2040 as a percent of gross domestic product. The Democrat response: Add new entitlements. Congressional Democrats are moving to double Federal spending on the State Children's Health Insurance program (SCHIP), quite explicitly on their way to the biggest mega-entitlement of all, national health insurance.

Republicans need to go on offense with positive entitlement reforms, and take their case to the people. Does America really want to double or even triple Federal taxes relative to GDP?

Republicans should propose to block grant the entire Medicaid program back to the states, along with SCHIP, just as they did with the highly successful 1996 reforms of the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.

The Federal government sent its share of spending on that program in a block grant back to the states with the funds to be spent on a new program designed by each state based on required work for the able-bodied. The key is that the block grant is finite, not matching. If the state program costs more, the state must pay those costs itself. If the state innovates and saves money, the state keeps the savings. With these new incentives, welfare rolls under the old program declined by almost 60% nationwide.

Send Federal spending on Medicaid and SCHIP back to the states under the same finite block grant formula. Leave the states free to decide exactly what services are covered under their new state-designed programs, and at exactly what income levels, with a work requirement for the able-bodied.

Limit Federal spending on these block grants to grow no faster than the rate of growth of GDP, producing enormous long-run savings.

It is well-known that illegal aliens often use false Social Security numbers in seeking employment in the US. Research has shown that in some instances, hundreds of illegals are using the same number, often taken from a real and employed American. To deal with this, Homeland Security adopted a new regulation requiring employers to take action when notified that an employee had an apparently false Social Security number.

The ACLU and the AFL-CIO claimed that this would be used as "an excuse" for employers to fire employees. But the law allows the employee 90 days to correct the problem before they would be fired. The San Francisco judge who issued the injunction was appointed by former President Clinton. If the injunction is made permanent pending trial, the appeal would go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the most "liberal" and the most-reversed Circuit in the nation.

A logical conclusion was that the plaintiffs did some serious judge-shopping in this case. It could have been filed in any federal court in the nation. They chose to file it in San Francisco, where Homeland Security might have to appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court to dispense with this attack on efforts to deal with illegal aliens in the US.

Notice this telling statement about the case by John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, who said, "This rule is a new tool to repress workers' rights in the name of phony immigration enforcement." Notice this statement assumes that illegal aliens using other people's Social Security numbers have a "right" to do exactly that, and that American labor unions are in the business of protecting those "rights."

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from Webwire, an Internet resource for recently broken stories. This article was published on 4 September, based on ACLU documents.

Go here to find this article on the Net.

The second shoe has dropped in Georgia. A year ago, there were temporary injunctions in place in both state and federal courts against the new Voter ID Law in that state. The law had been modified in response to a prior ruling in the federal court. The revised law allowed any resident of Georgia who did not already have a drivers license, to obtain for free a photo ID like those used by people who do not, or cannot, get a drivers license.

Earlier this year, an appeal of a state judge's injunction against the same law was decided in the Georgia Supreme Court. That Court did not rule on the merits of the case, but instead dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs had any right to bring such a case.

Now, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy has dissolved his own temporary injunction against the law, and dismissed the whole case as being without merit. (Since this was a civil rights case - voting is the most basic civil right - and Georgia prevailed, the last step remaining should be a stiff fee award against the plaintiffs and their ACLU-type attorneys, for bringing a baseless claim.)

Judge Murphy wrote a 159-page decision that praised the state's "exceptional efforts" to contact voters to inform them of the new law, and how to comply with it for free. He also noted that any voter could still vote by absentee ballot without showing an ID, so no voter was "prevented from participating" in elections.

A correct summary of this case came from Secretary of State Karen Handel. She called Murphy's ruling ``a tremendous victory'' for integrity in elections. The state court decision is final. The plaintiff's counsel has not committed to whether they will appeal. The trend of cases across the country is now strongly in favor of Voter ID laws. Appeals of decisions upholding such laws will probably fail.

It will be interesting to see what precincts in Georgia might have significant declines in votes cast, with the ID law being enforced for the first time beginning in with "early voting" on 18 September. If there is a serious decrease, it will indicate that a significant problem has now been solved by a common sense law, upheld by common sense judges.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in AccessNorthGeorgia.com, from the Associated Press, published on 6 September.

The second shoe has dropped in Georgia. A year ago, there were temporary injunctions in place in both state and federal courts against the new Voter ID Law in that state. The law had been modified in response to a prior ruling in the federal court. The revised law allowed any resident of Georgia who did not already have a drivers license, to obtain for free a photo ID like those used by people who do not, or cannot, get a drivers license.

Earlier this year, an appeal of a state judge's injunction against the same law was decided in the Georgia Supreme Court. That Court did not rule on the merits of the case, but instead dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs had any right to bring such a case.

Now, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy has dissolved his own temporary injunction against the law, and dismissed the whole case as being without merit. (Since this was a civil rights case - voting is the most basic civil right - and Georgia prevailed, the last step remaining should be a stiff fee award against the plaintiffs and their ACLU-type attorneys, for bringing a baseless claim.)

Judge Murphy wrote a 159-page decision that praised the state's "exceptional efforts" to contact voters to inform them of the new law, and how to comply with it for free. He also noted that any voter could still vote by absentee ballot without showing an ID, so no voter was "prevented from participating"
in elections.

A correct summary of this case came from Secretary of State Karen Handel.
She called Murphy's ruling ``a tremendous victory'' for integrity in elections. The state court decision is final. The plaintiff's counsel has not committed to whether they will appeal. The trend of cases across the country is now strongly in favor of Voter ID laws. Appeals of decisions upholding such laws will probably fail.

It will be interesting to see what precincts in Georgia might have significant declines in votes cast, with the ID law being enforced for the first time beginning in with "early voting" on 18 September. If there is a serious decrease, it will indicate that a significant problem has now been solved by a common sense law, upheld by common sense judges.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in AccessNorthGeorgia.com, from the Associated Press, published on 6 September.

Go here to find this article on the Net.

The ACLU has settled one case against Homeland Security concerning a holding facility in Texas for whole families of illegal aliens. At the same time, one of the largest, most left-wing unions in the US files a new suit against Homeland. Both cases are of a piece in trying to prevent the US from enforcing its immigration laws.

The lawsuit Texas concerned the 512-bed T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility in Taylor, Texas. The ACLU had claimed that Homeland Security was "mistreating" families, and especially children, who were being held pending deportation at that place.

A fact-finding trial was about to begin concerning that facility. According to the article, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had begun "improving education, recreation, medical care and privacy standards at its first large holding facility for illegal immigrant families." From the Washington Post article, it is not possible to judge whether these were improvements that ICE intended to make anyway, or were caused by the filing of this law suit.

When filed, the ACLU lawsuit claimed a chamber of horrors as being inflicted on long-suffering immigrants, without ever using the word "illegal." Apparently, the ACLU abandoned any claim that the families who were taken into this facility were anything other than probable illegal aliens who could be deported when they had been given a hearing on that matter.

Also, it is worth noting that the ACLU switches sides on factual matters, choosing the position with the highest "ain't it terrible" index. In Massachusetts, the ACLU challenged ICE "raids" that "separated parents from their children." In Texas, the ACLU challenged ICE precisely because it was not separating children from their parents.

Interestingly, the Post includes in this article a separate subject of a different suit in Oregon. It states that "the Service Employees International Union plans today to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland, Ore., against another federal immigration agency, charging that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services exceeded its authority by raising fees significantly July 30, including increasing charges for citizenship applicants from $400 to $675.

"The increase 'presents a huge barrier to thousands of immigrants' anxious to vote in the 2008 presidential primary and general elections, said Eliseo Medina, the union's executive vice president. 'This lawsuit is about accountability.' "

Were the reporters and editors responsible for this article thinking as they were typing in preparing these two paragraphs? Everyone who has not been living under a rock knows that illegal immigrants are paying upwards of $5,000 a piece to be smuggled into the United States. And yet, this particular American union claims that raising the fee for a citizenship application by - are you ready for this? - $275.

But most important is the absurdly laughable reason why the SEIU has filed this case, because thousands of immigrants are "anxious" to vote in next year's elections. Even aliens who have a right to become citizens under an obvious category such as marriage to an American, do not get their citizenship fast enough to vote in next year's elections. A competent reporter or editor should have known this, and pursued an additional point.

Perhaps the Executive Vice President of this Union was committing accidental truth, admitting that these illegals WILL vote in next year's elections, unless effective steps are taken to cut down on vote fraud.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Washington Post, published on 26 August.

Go here to find this article on the Net.

Below is the text of my follow-up letter on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union to the Guilford County School Board of North Carolina. (My first letter, dated August 27, 2007, may be found here.)

September 10, 2007

Dear School Board Member:

I am submitting these comments regarding the proposed rules concerning meetings of the Boy Scouts of America and other youth groups at Guilford County public schools, and communications regarding those meetings. I understand that the School Board has asked for comments regarding the proposed rules before its next meeting Thursday night, September 13.

We want to emphasize at the outset that the American Civil Rights Union does not represent the Boy Scouts, and we are not legal counsel for the Boy Scouts. We are an entirely separate, independent organization, with thousands and thousands of supporters across the country who want us to speak up to defend the Scouts and their values wherever we can and whenever we can. We have participated in legal battles as well to defend the rights of others to express and work for the values in which they believe.

One proposal now being considered by the Guilford County School Board, allegedly based on safety concerns, would prohibit the Scouts and others from meeting in district schools during after school programs until 6pm each night. The Scouts would have to hold any of their meetings at schools after 6pm.

Another proposal would prohibit the Scouts from distributing literature to other students and their families through the school's notice distribution system that provides flyers to students to take home to their parents.

The Federal Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, 20 USC 7905, Section 9525 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by Section 901 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, provides,

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public elementary school, public secondary school, local educational agency, or State educational agency that has a designated open forum or a limited public forum and that receives funds made available through the Department shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, or any other youth group listed in title 36 of the United States Code (as a patriotic society), that wishes to conduct a meeting within that designated open forum or limited public forum, including denying such access or opportunity or discriminating for reasons based on the membership or leadership criteria or oath of allegiance to God and country of the Boy Scouts of America...."

This Act protects the Girl Scouts as well as the Boy Scouts, and other youth groups. We submit that restricting Scout meetings with a claim regarding safety that does not have a rational basis, where, indeed, the proposed rule seems to reduce safety rather than enhance it, would be a violation of the Act. We think asking students to go home and come back after dark for youth group meetings only opens up new dangers for students. We have not seen or heard any factual basis for a claim that allowing the Scouts to meet right after school along with other after school activities raises any real safety concern for anyone. Therefore, we think adoption of the proposed rule in these circumstances would warrant investigation by the applicable enforcement authorities, as well as us and others, as to whether the law has been violated.

Secondly, if the school district prohibits the Scouts from distributing meeting notices through the school's standard notice distribution system, with a packet of flyers that is sent home with each student for the day, then under the Federal law the school district could not send home any notice from any outside organization that relates to the students in any way. That would include announcements for Little League tryouts, Red Cross blood drives, privately sponsored public events, etc. Including any of these notices but excluding the Boy Scouts, and other protected organizations, would constitute discrimination against the Scouts and not provide equal access, in violation of the Act. We believe as well that exactly which notices are sent out would be subject to freedom of information requests.

Finally, apart from what the law requires, there is the question of what constitutes sound public policy. Our nation is plagued by many youth problems, including violence, alcoholism, gangs, drugs, and teen sex and pregnancy. We submit that in this context school administrators would be failing their communities if they do not try to accommodate youth groups with a long record of promoting sound moral values and good conduct by students, like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. In 2010, the Boy Scouts of America will be celebrating their one hundredth anniversary. They and their Scout members have done much good work for our nation's communities during that one hundred years, and lots of boys have benefited for their entire lives because of the values they learned in their scouting experience. For a School Board to deny the Scouts meetings during after school activities on the basis that these meetings are somehow dangerous, and to hamper Scout communications with the community, would reflect serious problems of judgment.

Yours Truly,

Peter Ferrara
General Counsel

The subtext of yesterday's Joint hearing in the House featuring General Petraeus and the coming Senate hearing, is the position that the Democrats in Congress will take when the dust settles. Some Democrat warhorses, like Senator Kennedy, staked out their position in advance of the hearings and the "Petraeus Report." But for the Liberals to actually DO anything will require the consent of their back benchers in both Houses. And, that is very much an undecided outcome.

When the United States engages in military action, the Constitution requires two forms of congressional consent. One is a declaration of war, a joint resolution supported by a majority of both Houses of Congress. In some recent acts of war, for instance in Bosnia, this has not been done. However, the Supreme Court has white-washed that lack by saying it wasn't necessary, since Congress "voted for the money for the military."

Now, technically, that's not what the Constitution says. But in this instance, Congress passed Joint Resolutions (which were folded into laws) in 2001 and 2002, authorizing the "use of military force across international boundaries," as determined by the President. Only those who bury their noses in dusty history books know this is nearly word for word the authorization Congress gave President Jefferson to go after the Barbary Pirates back in 1805. (That was the only other time that Congress declared war without naming one or more nations as the target.)

The other step which the Constitution requires is that Congress must appropriate the money for any military action, the same way that it spends public money for any other purpose. Congress has done that for the wars that are going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in a much lower-grade way in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Britain, Germany, and other places around the world.

Yesterday, a Congressman posed a hypothetical question to General Petraeus about Congress "withdrawing authority for the war." Let's examine his hypothetical. If the Democrats in Congress, plus a handful of Republicans, actually agree to "stop the war" in its tracks, what are their constitutional options to accomplish that?

They could withdraw the authority of the President to "use military force" in Iraq, or elsewhere. This requires only a majority vote in both Houses. No official action is required, or even permitted, by the President. The Democrats have a majority in both Houses. Yet, this step will not be taken, and here is why.

There are roughly 42 so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House. These are somewhat conservative Democrats from largely conservative districts in the South. These Representatives had to appear conservative to win election and will not be reelected if they stray too far from that stance. The idea of declaring the war over while our soldiers are still in the field is anathema in districts like mine, NC 11th in the Blue Ridge Mountains where the events like those depicted in Cold Mountain really happened to real people.

Our current House of Representatives cannot muster a majority to terminate the declarations of war. And, the Senate, knowing the status of the House, has no reason to climb out on that limb, and let the House saw it off.

The other option is to cut off the money to "terminate the war." Ah, but this requires legislation and the Democrats would have to pass a law to end the appropriation of money for the military to fight on. Perhaps they could muster a majority vote for this purpose, but it would be subject to a presidential veto -- support for which would be very unlikely.

So, the bottom line is -- terminating funding requires a two-thirds majority in each House, the number needed to override a veto. The Democrats plus a few Republicans in each House do not add up to a two-thirds majority in either House. Therefore, neither House of Congress will pass a de-funding bill, only to see it fail in the end.

The "anti-war" Members of Congress in both Houses will give thundering speeches about the "failure" of the surge, and of the war. Members will praise the service and integrity of General Petraeus in the hearings while quibbling both his integrity and his competence in the questions they put to him.

The bottom line is this: There will be only be speeches and slanted questions by those who oppose the war. Neither Senate Majority Leader Reid nor House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will introduce a withdrawal of the declarations or a termination of funding for action this year.

About the Author: John Armor was a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court for 33 years, and briefed 18 cases there. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He is now a counsel to the American Civil Rights Union. www.theacru.org

Thanks to the American Civil Rights Union for the opportunity to blog about students' rights on American college and university campuses. I am especially pleased to be able to blog this week as we pass the two hundred twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Below I quote a post from yesterday on The Torch, the blog of my employer, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), on Constitution Day, the rise of the Bill of Rights, and its significance to college students.

To secure liberty, the Framers had agreed to structural arrangements in the Constitution including checks and balances, separation of powers, and federalism. Their ideas came from a long and storied Western tradition with high points in four cities: Jerusalem , Athens , Rome , and London . To that esteemed list was now added a fifth: Philadelphia.

The American contribution to freedom was constitutionalism, the idea of, in Samuel Adams's words, a "fixed constitution." Without it, capricious leaders, like those in Parliament, could determine American lives from afar, without their consent and without limit. Liberty was defined as freedom from arbitrary rule. Enshrining such power in written form circumscribed the power of government officials and state actors and eliminated arbitrary decision making by requiring limited, defined, and legitimate methods through which the government could act.

Whatever the new Constitution's strengths, even the Federalists admitted that there were no guarantees for individual rights. Despite Alexander Hamilton's assurances that the structural arrangement was itself a bill of rights, the Framers parted ways in agreement on the Constitution with the understanding that they would later write and ratify what James Madison called a "parchment barrier" against tyranny in the form of the Bill of Rights. The first item in that bill of rights was an unequivocal promise of five freedoms or rights: religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

At risk of growing redundant, we again point out to FIRE readers that the abovementioned rights and protections are violated on a perpetual basis on college campuses. The vast majority of America 's colleges and universities ignore these fundamental rights in speech codes meticulously catalogued on FIRE's Spotlight. Barely a day passes that FIRE does not receive a case submission of yet another student rights violation at an American educational institution--despite higher education institutions being the most rhetorically committed to free expression and free inquiry.

So, on this day, as students across America are taught about the great freedoms they have inherited, raise your glass toward Philadelphia in celebration of the freedoms you enjoy and remember that FIRE is here at the birthplace of American liberty, making sure our country's college students will enjoy those freedoms into the future.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HoraceCooper/2007/09/22/executive_decision

President Bush's announcement of the name of the person who would replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was eagerly anticipated by many in Washington. Gonzales, caricatured as inept and bumbling by critics of the President, had decided in August that he wouldn't continue in his designated role as Washington's whipping boy du jour. In the end the President's choice of Judge Michael Mukasey wasn't a surprise as much as it was a stinging acknowledgement of the complete political breakdown that has taken place in Washington - a breakdown that increasingly is trampling all over the executive's appointment power. If after 2008 the Democrats win the White House will they regret the precedent that they are helping to establish?

On 24 September, the New York Times published an article on the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which approved the Indiana voter ID law in January, in a divided decision. The losing plaintiffs asked the whole circuit to rehear the case, which it just rejected, so the decision stands.

Both dissenting Judge Terence T. Evans in the 2-1 decision, and reporter Adam Liptak, the reporter on the story, demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the role of judges in the American political system. But first, the article denigrates the well-respected Judge Richard A. Posner, who wrote the majority decision.

Judge Posner wrote, "It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID. Try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit." The reporter immediately says, "somewhere between 13 million and 22 million Americans of voting age, most of them poor, get by without driver's licenses...." No source is given for this number. Nor does it deal with the fact that millions of those living in the US are illegal aliens, who in most cases do not have drivers licenses, and who should not be voting in American elections, anyway.

The article sneers in print, "Judge Posner seemed to think it a small burden to ask such people to get a photo ID in order to vote." The article does not note that anyone who wants to present a $20 check at the grocery store is subject to the requirement of a picture ID. And most states make picture IDs available for free, to those who cannot pay for them.

The article implies that there is no factual need for such a voter ID law. It says, "As far as anyone knows," Judge Posner conceded, "no one in Indiana, and not many people elsewhere, are known to have been prosecuted for impersonating a registered voter." Neither the lawyers in the case nor the reporter afterward bothered to punch up "voter fraud" in any computer program. It would have produced dozens of pending cases in at least five states, involving more than 10,000 false entries, all apparently provided by a national organization, ACORN.

The article closes with a quote from the dissent: "Is it wise," Judge Evans asked, "to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?"

This demonstrates the failure to understand the role of a judge. The "wisdom" of a law is never the province of a reviewing judge. All laws involve trade-offs between benefits and liabilities. Usually, that is a balance between the desirability of the program against the undesirability of more taxes to pay for it. Whether a given choice is "wise" is committed to elected representatives. If they are wrong in their decisions, they can be replaced by better, and wiser, representatives in the next election.

Federal judges are subject to no such correction. That is precisely why judges should only determine whether the action of a legislature, or of Congress, is within the limits of the powers granted by their constitutions. To consider whether a law is constitutional has nothing to do with whether an unelected judge in his personal opinion believes that the law is wise.

Judges who think and write this way are unfit to serve on either state or federal courts. And reporters who believe this is a valid argument in a case on the Constitution are unfit to report on decisions made by courts. Such judges and such reporters, if they are genuinely interested in the "wisdom" of any political decision, they are welcome to step down from their present positions, run for the legislature. Once elected, they will have a legitimate right to consider the wisdom of any proposed law that may come before them.

A healthy debate.

At: nationalreview.com

The facts for this comment, but not the legal conclusions, came from an article published on KGO7 TV on September 24.

The US Marines proposed to shoot a recruiting commercial on the streets of San Francisco, as they already had on the streets of New York. They wanted their famed Silent Drill Team to perform for just a few minutes on ordinary city streets. New York said yes. But San Francisco said no.

The ACLU was not directly involved in the rejection in San Francisco, but it's thinking on the subject of military recruiters definitely was. If the ACLU was genuinely concerned about preserving freedom of speech, it would take the side of the Marines in San Francisco. But for some odd reason, the ACLU is silent on this.

The rejection of the Marines in that City came from the Executive Director of the San Francisco Film Commission, Stefanie Coyote. She said the Marines could shoot film on California Street, "as long as there are no Marines in the picture." Of course, the function of a film commission there, as anywhere else in the country, is to promote film makers' choice of that locale for shooting.

Captain Greg Corrales is in charge of the police unit that supports film crews working in the City. He is also a Marine veteran, and his son is serving his third tour of duty in Iraq.

Captain Greg Corrales commands the police traffic bureau that works with crews shooting commercials, TV shows and movies in the city. He's also a Marine veteran and his son is serving his third tour of duty in Iraq. He said, "Ms. Coyote's politics blinded her to her duty as the director of the Film Commission and as a responsible citizen."

Originally, Ms. Coyote refused to offer the TV station any reason for censoring the Marines. At the meeting of the Film Commission, she claimed that it was "because they wanted to shoot in rush hour." But Captain Corrales pointed out that the Commission often approves shoots during rush hour, especially if they are short and have limited impact. The Marines wanted to close one lane, for a few minutes.

Several Marines who commented on the City's actions pointed out that it routinely allows events which can totally block traffic in the City, such as anti-war protests, and Critical Mass (a large bicycle event). They noted that this refusal is similar to the City's refusal of docking space for the USS Iowa, banning Junior ROTC from the high schools, and attempting to bar the Blue Angels from the annual air show.

Source for original story on the Net: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=5673526

The facts for this comment come from a Press Release of the Institute on Religion and Democracy on 20 September. (Ordinarily, a press release from an interested party would not be used as the basis of a comment. But the dispute between the Methodists and a lesbian couple has been reported elsewhere, and New Jersey has definitely taken the side of the lesbians.)

The Ocean Grove Camp Ground was created and developed by the Methodist Church in the 19th century. At all times it has been owned and operated by the Methodists. For more than a century the Methodists have invited citizens of New Jersey, regardless of their religious beliefs, to share in the use of the property. Many people have asked for, and been granted, permission to conduct marriages on the property. However, it is the stated policy of the Methodist Church not to conduct same-sex ceremonies on its property.

A lesbian couple asked for permission to marry on the property, and were refused. They then complained to the state. The NJ Commissioner for Environmental Protection then ruled that Ocean Grove was no longer tax exempt as a "public place" because it would not permit the lesbian "marriage" there.

It is unclear whether the ACLU was involved in the case. It is entirely consistent with the ACLU's position in other cases that it would support the "right" of the lesbians to get "married" on Methodist property. In the reporting of the story, it was not made clear why the Commissioner for Environmental Protection has any power whatsoever over the tax exempt status of any property, whether it belongs to the Methodists or anyone else.

It is black letter law that no state has the right to dictate to any religion what beliefs it must adhere to, on its own property. It is also black letter law that no state can discriminate between religions, by granting tax exemption to one religion but not to another, based on the state's opinion about the beliefs of each religion.

Of course, New Jersey does have the power, if it so chose, to end the tax exemptions of ALL religions in that state. No politician in his right mind would ever suggest such a thing, but it is theoretically possible.

The source does not suggest what steps the Methodist Church is taking next to confront the religious discrimination just presented by the State. Presumably, there are appeals available and they have been pursued. But, there is an inexpensive, simple solution which might get a good result much faster.

The Methodists could post a sign at the entrance to Oak Grove Camp Ground which says: "For a century, the Methodists have warmly welcomed people of all beliefs to share the hospitality of this Camp. Now, the State of New Jersey says that is not acceptable. So, if you are not a believing Methodist, you can no longer come here."

"If you object to that, as we do too, please call [BUREAUCRAT] at [PHONE NUMBER] and tell him to reverse his decision against the Church and the Camp Ground. If you get no satisfaction from him, please call [STATE REPRESENTATIVE] and [STATE SENATOR]."

The belief of this writer is that $100 spent to post this sign would get a just result much faster than 100 times that much, spent on lawyers.

Source for original story on the Net:
http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=390529&ct=4455835&tr=y&auid=3022851

The facts for this comment, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article published in the Minnesota Monitor on 25 September.

The Minnesota prosecutors have filed their response to the plea by Senator Larry Craig's attorneys filed in an effort to have his entered and accepted guilty plea withdrawn in the airport sex investigation arrest. Contrary to the Senator's allegation that he was "rushed" or "pressured" to plead guilty, the reply notes that he pleaded guilty by mail. This allowed maximum time and opportunity for the Senator to consider whether to plead guilty to the lesser charge.

Also, the prosecutor who handled the case notes that he talked directly to the Senator several times at the Senator's request. At no time, claims the prosecutor, did the Senator express any upset or concern about his guilty plea until after it had been accepted, put in place, but then was discovered by the national press.

Larry Craig's effort to have his guilt struck from the record may fail on the record, and never get to a hearing. But, if there is a hearing, the Senator must be a witness to testify about his "misunderstanding," or "pressure," in making his plea. Among the questions this writer thinks the judge should act in such a hearing, are these: How long have you been a Member of the House, and then a Senator? While you were a Member of Congress, did you not participate actively and regularly in writing federal laws? Did you understand the laws you were writing over those decades? Did you experience times of pressure and urgency in that process?

And given the answers that the record shows Senator Craig must give to those questions, the last one is: Given your experience with law, and with pressure, how can you say without laughing that you could not handle the situation presented to you prior to your plea of guilt to a lesser charge?

The last interesting factor is that the ACLU sought to file an amicus curia brief in the trial court, supporting the position of Senator Craig. Trial courts generally are hostile to amicus briefs, unlike appellate courts which welcome them.

The fact that the ACLU has sought to file such a brief in this case indicates how strongly and consistently the ACLU supports the homosexual agenda at all opportunities - in cases concerning school programs, in a case concerning the North American Man-Boy Love Association in Massachusetts, and now in Minnesota, supporting the "right" of adult males to seek sexual relations with other males in a bathroom built at an airport for the ostensible purpose of relief for the traveling public, both men and boys.

The website listed below has a click link to all the pleadings in this case, filed both by the Senator and the State, if anyone cares to read the original documents.

Source for original story on the Net:
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2516

The facts for this story, but not the legal conclusions, come from a column in the Boston Herald on 27 September.

On September 26th, Antonio Montenegro ran over a child on a bicycle in a crosswalk, in Lynnfield, Massachusetts. Montenegro is an illegal immigrant who has been driving without a license for eight years. Onlookers forced him to stop when he ran over 12-year-old Zachary Titus, who was on his bicycle..

Zachary suffered a broken leg, but is otherwise okay. What happened to Montenegro is what's interesting. Original media reports that he was "released on his own recognizance" are false. It was worse than that. He was never arrested in the first place. He was given two tickets, one for driving without a license and the other for "failure to yield at a crosswalk."

The day after the arrest, the Lynnfield police claimed that Montenegro presented a visa that showed who he was. This is contradicted by Montenegro himself, who told a local TV station he "could not get a license because he was in the country illegally." He further said that he'd been in the country illegally for eight years, and that he'd built up a painting business, which owned the van that he drove over Zachary Titus and his bicycle.

The local police said there was nothing else they could or should have done. This writer has not curled up with the Massachusetts Criminal Code for an evening of light reading. However, I am fairly certain that it is illegal to run over a child in a crosswalk, even in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. Breaking a child's leg certainly qualifies as "great bodily harm," a phrase that the common law - which Massachusetts follows - uses to draw a line between a technical harm, and one that is really serious.

The only reason why this man was not arrested, fingerprinted, and photographed front and side, is that the local police apparently thought it would be politically incorrect to arrest this gentleman because he was, after all, an "undocumented immigrant" who was "working hard to better himself."

If there is reason and logic in Massachusetts - bear with me, this might somehow happen - Montenegro should be arrested on the more serious charge of running over the child. The Police Chief of Lynnfield should be encouraged to seek alternative employment. And the parents of the child should sue this illegal driver back to the Stone Age before he is deported.

Go here for this story on the Net: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1034352

The Constitution is simple, short and easy to read. There is no excuse for any reporter to write about it, without reading it. The latest example is an article about anchor babies in the Orlando Sentinel today (29 September) by Jim Stratton.

The article concerns a comment about anchor babies by Fred Thompson, Republican candidate for President. If you haven't followed the illegal immigration debate, anchor babies are children born on US soil of illegal immigrant parents. The babies get citizenship. Then, the provisions for "reuniting families" kick in, and the baby assists the parents in becoming legal.

It is a serious problem. Even illegals who cannot read a word of English, are aware of the law. Mexican women who are eight months pregnant are dying every month in the deserts on the border, trying to have their child here as "an American."

Thompson's comment on the automatic citizenship was, "I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons, [and] needs to be revisited." The reporter's gloss on Thompson's comment, was "Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court...."

The reporter was either incompetent or dishonest. Here's what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says in its first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." That's the legal basis for anchor babies.

Those who say anchor babies are guaranteed by the Constitution, and cannot be eliminated without an amendment, jump right over the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Here's an example to explain that, applied to children.

An Australian diplomat and his wife (or her husband) are serving in the United States. She has a child, born in a US hospital. Is that child an American? Absolutely not. Under the laws of the US, a child born of a diplomatic couple is a citizen of their nation, not ours, just as the embassies themselves are defined as territory of the foreign nations, not of the US.

What is the connection between the diplomatic child and the child of an illegal alien from whatever country, though most likely from Mexico? Here's the last sentence of the 14th Amendment, a provision which is common to many amendments: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Based on the plain language of the Constitution, Congress is given the power in the 14th Amendment itself to pass "appropriate" legislation. Therefore, Congress could pass a law that says, "For the purpose of citizenship of them or their children, aliens who are not in the US legally, or not here for the purpose of obtaining citizenship are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US as stated in the 14th Amendment."

Such a law would be legal, because the Constitution permits it. It would mean a child born in a Tucson, or San Diego, or Laredo hospital of Mexican parents, would be a Mexican child. The anchor baby problem would be over. No more pregnant women would die in deserts of the Southwest, trying to get to a US hospital to have their "American" child.

Contrary to what Jim Stratton asserts as fact, this Amendment ratified in 1868 provides for this very solution, if Congress chooses to solve the problem by law. His assertion that the Supreme Court has held to this result is equally ignorant. The case he refers to, but doesn't name, concerned the child of two aliens who were in the US legally, not illegally.

I am not picking on Jim Stratton and the Orlando Sentinel. The ignorance they display on this issue is common to most of the local and national reporters who talk about anchor babies. Almost all of them assume, and state, that the problem is built into the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment. All of them are either dishonest, because they've read the Constitution, and know the legislative power is given to Congress. Or, more likely, they are merely ignorant. They haven't read the Constitution; they assume because many other reporters have said this, it must be true. Therefore, they don't look it up.

This is not the first instance, nor the last, of the American press being a copraphage, consuming its own output.