A positive impact of the Tea Party movement

Yes, there actually is one. The NY Times ran an article that claims that the Tea Party movement has sparked a national discussion about the constitution.

This is never a bad thing. Anything that actually gets people to read the Constitution can't be bad. It's not just a piece of paper - it's the framework and foundation for our government. Just as important, it codifies the rights and civil liberties that we thankfully, still enjoy today (even thought they are mostly taken for granted).

One scholar was quoted in the article:

“It really is open to interpretation by anybody, in what I sometimes call the lawyerhood of all citizens,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas. “Anybody in a bar can get into a shouting argument over what equal protection means, or the right to free speech.”

I would love to see an argument between two private citizens in a bar over the right to privacy.

I could be fired for my bumper sticker

So says NPR:

Did you know you could be fired for not removing a political sticker from your car — or even having a beer after work? Lewis Maltby says it's more than possible — it's happened. His new book, Can They Do That? explores rights in the workplace.

As he tells NPR's Ari Shapiro, "Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment — but only where the government is concerned.

"What most Americans generally don't know is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all."

Good thing I take the bus to work.

Under Your Radar: TN Supreme Court Rules that 4th Amendment Does Not Apply to Parolees

From WSMV:

A precedent-setting ruling from the state Supreme Court has determined the Fourth Amendment right isn't for everybody.

The ruling now gives Tennessee law enforcement officials more authority to conduct searches of the 61,000 Tennesseans on probation or parole. They can do it at any time, without reason, and without a warrant.

“I think it will be a better way to keep a handle of parolees and probationers,” said Nashville attorney Worrick Robinson.

You can view the decision of the majority here.

Sharon Lee was the lone dissenter:

I respectfully disagree with the majority. In my view, the police officers’ search of Ms. Turner’s residence without reasonable or individualized suspicion violates article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. While the United States Supreme Court has ruled in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), that such a search, without reasonable or individualized suspicion, does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, I would hold the Tennessee Constitution provides a greater degree of protection against suspicionless searches than does the federal Constitution.

Here's the text of the Article I, Section 7 of the TN Constitution:

[T]he people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not to be granted.

UPDATE: So I investigated a little bit to see if there have been any similar cases concerning the rights of parolees and the 4th Amendment.

In Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987), a probationer's home was searched by probation officers, accompanied by police, without consent, without a warrant, and without the semblance of probable cause. A handgun was found and introduced in evidence over objection at Griffin's felony trial.

The Supreme Court upheld the search as "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, stressing that the search was conducted under a state regulation authorizing probation officers to search a probationer's home when there were "reasonable grounds" to believe there was contraband in the home.

Catoosa County school board stands by ban on Christian-themed cheerleader signs

This story has gotten surprisingly little attention. I've been following it for a while, but this is my first time commenting on it:

Catoosa County’s Christian community turned out in force tonight in Fort Oglethorpe, Ga., to call for lifting a ban on Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School cheerleaders’ Bible-verse banners, but school board members said they’re sticking to the decision.

Seriously. These people don't understand that church and state are completely different realms. What is it about the "wall of separation" that they just can't grasp?!

I suggest that these people check out Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Also, read this and snort.

"BUT-BUT- Interested Citizen! THIS IS OUR CULTURE!!! HOW DARE YOU INTERFERE IN OUR WAY OF LIFE! RAWR!!!" // Yeah, we all understand that you love Jesus and don't have a problem expressing that sentiment. I'm a church-going Christian myself. This isn't about "freedom from religion". We're asking you to respect the Constitution and not use school property to promote a religious message.

The bigger question: why do you all have such a large chip on your shoulder?

I ran across this blog post as well. It's worth the read.

An imminent military coup against Obama to "restore" the Constitution? What?

So yesterday John Perry, a columnist at Newsmax, wrote a piece called, "Obama Risks a Military Intervention". Of course Newsmax scrubbed their site of any trace of this article, but luckily Talking Points Memo was able to save a copy of it:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic . . .[V]iew the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

Yes, our military is so upset about companies voluntarily seeking help from the government (as opposed to Chavez-style nationalization), and are so concerned about liberal efforts to hold the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as sacrosanct that they feel a duty to overthrow the government. They are so dispondent about Obama's 10% increase of the defense budget and his efforts to eliminate obsolete, Cold War-era bombers that they will topple their constitutional leader. They will oust him because he wants to provide the military with better health care and decent veterans hospitals. They can't stand that he wants to ensure their educational opportunities after their service ends and that he wants to pay them more for putting their lives on the line. I mean, who can blame them.

Back in reality, what Mr. Perry willfully ignores is, well, you know - THE CONSTITUTION. That whole part about the president being Commander-in-Chief of the military. He also ignores the blatant hypocrisy and irony of using an unconstitutional action to "save" the Constitution. Is this sort of like how Bush "sacrificed free market principles in order to save the free market"?

Here's a better idea. How about you and your ilk get off your asses and vote? There is a mid-term election coming up soon. Obama's up for reelection in 2012. Hell, if the GOP takes the Congress in 2010, you could even get the House to impeach him and have the Senate remove him from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (sorry - an affair with an intern won't count this time). Those are your options under the Constitution.

Mr. Perry also seems to be willing to disregard the strong and vitally important American tradition of a non-politicized military force. Department of Defense guidelines regarding political participation have been written to ensure that the military does not encroach on the U.S. political system:

Military Members cannot appear at political rallies in uniform. Military members are allowed to vote and support for whichever political party they choose, but they must not do so in uniform. Appearing in uniform would suggest a branch of service or the military endorses that particular candidate.

Military members may not use government facilities as a political hub. For example, if you are a uniformed member of the military who supports the Republican Party you cannot use your office or any other government facility to gather votes and support. For some bases and posts, that includes posting political party signs, bumper stickers and other obvious paraphernalia in your work center. Uniformed members are allowed to have bumper stickers on their private vehicles.

There's also this important guideline:

Active Duty military members cannot hold political office positions in Federal or State government, even if appointed by the President. Retirees can do so without restriction; reservists can do so with certain limitations. Active Duty members can hold positions in local civil governments provided that they do not interfere with military duty. If elected to a civil position, the member still may not wear a uniform while serving that position. For example, a military member may not wear a uniform during a press conference as the mayor of your local town.

Defence policy, schamense policy. So what does John Perry envision for a post-Obama government?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Mmm... military dictatorship. Sounds appealing.

So they criticize Obama for allegedly creating an "civilian army", but don't have a problem with "skilled, military-trained, nation-builders" running the country. I guess this is just one more example of IOKIYAR. Also, they want to talk about "accountability-challenged"? How about they take accountability for LOSING the election last year. Apparently not only do some on the right think it is okay steal votes, but they would be okay with stealing an entire government. Do they think Americans are too stupid for a republic? Are we not capable of electing our leaders and holding them accountable?

Treasonous bastards.

Cutting off ACORN funding unconstitutional?

Politico floats the idea:

Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, of the Constitution explicitly prohibit the passage of “bills of attainder”: legislation targeted to benefit or penalize an individual or group, most often by excluding it from government service.

Does the House’s Defund ACORN Act, which passed 345-75 last week, constitute a bill of attainder? The case law on the issue is inconclusive, but it’s provided a glimmer for ACORN’s diminishing cadre of defenders.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties — and one of the 75 Democratic nays — made the case in a floor speech last Thursday, saying the bill was “done in the spirit of the moment, and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the Constitution.”

If I remember correctly, the same argument was made against the AIG executive bonuses when Congress tried to come up with a way to take the money back. That effort failed, largely due to it being unconstitutional.

However, I wouldn't expect for this to go anywhere.