July 26, 2020, 4:08 PM

6 min read

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said she might be willing to work with federal officers to combat crime in the state if they are cooperative with local efforts, but cautioned that protecting the First Amendment rights of New Mexico's residents remains a focus.

"If we are cooperatively working to address violent crime and gun violence -- absolutely," she told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" Sunday. "If we're going to try to incentivize unrest than that's something all together different."

Lujan Grisham said that New Mexico requested federal agents to assist with police and crime investigations earlier in the administration and was not provided with funding.

"So the timing of their efforts remains to be a bit suspect," Lujan Grisham said.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced that he would be surging federal agents into certain American cities as part of "Operation Legend," a federal effort to combat violent crime. The initiative was first announced by Attorney General William Barr in an exclusive interview with ABC News earlier this month.

Trump said federal forces would be sent to cities including Albuquerque, New Mexico, as part of the new effort.

Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham speaks during a news conference on immigration to condemn the Trump Administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, outside the US Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2018.

While Trump and Barr have said that federal agents will focus on working with existing forces to assist in investigations of illegal gun sales and other crimes, some mayors and other state leaders have expressed concern that the deployment of federal agents could be seen as an occupation and have a chilling effect on protests.

On "This Week," the governor was also asked by Stephanopoulos to respond to recent Trump campaign advertisements and political attacks suggesting that America will be made unsafe due to efforts by former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats to "defund the police." Biden himself has stated that he does not support those initiatives.

Lujan Grisham told Stephanopoulos that these attacks are ill-conceived and said they are part of Trump's effort to divert attention away from his administration as the election nears.

"It is really about stoking fear ... and there isn't anything else you could point to 100 days out where you've succeeded," Lujan Grisham said. "We are seeing a failure in leadership, so let's go to making people fearful."

Lujan Grisham also slammed the administration for their failure to lead on combating the novel coronavirus as cases rise in New Mexico. She acknowledged that the number of cases were "way too high" when challenged by Stephanopoulos about whether it was time to do more to slow the spread in her state, but argued that New Mexico wasn't immune to what was happening elsewhere in the country.

"What's going on around the country affects everyone in the country ... there is no national strategy," she said.

She also called Trump's response "the worst abdication of a national response and responsibility to protect Americans" she had ever seen in her career.

Lujan Grisham has gained attention as a contender to join Biden as a running mate on the presidential ticket. When asked by Stephanopoulos about whether she'd been vetted to join the campaign as his vice president, she declined to answer, but acknowledged she has spoken with his team before.

"I have only been in touch with the campaign. And while it's incredibly flattering, I have got a full-time job right here, right now," she said.

More here:

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham says shed be willing to work with federal officers but timing is suspect - ABC News

There was never any doubt that Portlanders would counter federal officers show of force with one of their own.

Angered by recent news reports detailing federal law enforcements brazen and arguably criminal tactics against protesters, Portlanders have come out in droves to defend First Amendment rights and resist the effort directed by President Donald Trump to quell the nightly protests. Behind a front line of moms in yellow shirts linking arms, a cast of thousands, including elected officials, youths, retirees, repeat protesters and first-timers have been amassing outside the federal courthouse downtown the past several nights, breathing new life into the protests that have persisted for more than eight weeks. The mostly peaceful group of everyday Oregonians carrying signs and chanting slogans stands in sharp contrast to the shocking videos of federal officers beating a veteran, shooting a man in the face with a less-lethal round and grabbing protesters off the streets and throwing them into vans.

This is a city protective of its rich culture of protest and resolute in its opposition to Trump policies and actions. But it is also a city that risks losing sight of what sparked these protests in the first place.

Like elsewhere across the country, Portlanders took to the streets after the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who was captured on video driving his knee into the back of Floyds neck. That a police officer, knowing he was being recorded, could act with such indifference to the pleas of a Black man struggling to breathe laid bare the racism in the criminal justice system. But while other deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police ignited similar anger including incidents in Portland Floyds killing seemed to launch a movement more determined than ever to change the institutional ways that America devalues the lives of Black people.

In Oregon, leaders, businesses and individuals embraced the statement that Black lives matter and pledged change. Legislators quickly passed laws curbing police powers in a special session called by the governor. The Portland City Council eliminated funding for three specialty police units and unanimously extended the existing police contract by a year to give officials time to get more public feedback in negotiating accountability changes.

But the aims of the protests are being overshadowed by a longstanding controversy regarding how law enforcement oversees such demonstrations. Critics have called out the bureaus use of tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse after-hours crowds, while police highlight incidents in which individuals have turned violent or destructive, setting fires and launching projectiles at officers. While these clashes typically take place after most protesters have left downtown, the argument of who did what to whom has taken center stage in these nightly protests.

Certainly, any excessive use of force by police must be investigated. The actions by federal officers that appear to violate constitutional rights and send a message of intimidation are downright alarming and have merited condemnation by elected officials. And the sight of Portlanders joining together to emphatically reject such incursions on basic rights is inspiring.

But the changing narrative of these protests should worry those seeking racial reforms. Because while policing of these protests has been heavy-handed and indiscriminately harsh, theres nothing indiscriminate about who has been targeted and disproportionately policed for decades.

The inequities dont end there. They are built into our educational, economic, political, judicial and social systems that have for decades sanctioned poor educational outcomes for Black students, denied Black residents the ability to own homes, ensured underrepresentation of Black constituents, delivered harsher charges and prison sentences for Black defendants and convinced the community at large that this is just the way things are, not a reflection of deficiencies built into our systems. While the federal officers tactics are true threats, these racist practices are entrenched realities that need our sustained attention.

In an op-ed for The Washington Post last week, the Rev. E.D. Mondain, who heads the Portland chapter of the NAACP, warned that Portlanders are taking the bait laid by Trump and allowing themselves to be distracted from confronting racial inequities. Rather, demonstrations, he said, have become a spectacle.

Vandalizing government buildings and hurling projectiles at law enforcement draw attention but how do these actions stop police from killing black people? he wrote. What are antifa and other leftist agitators achieving for the cause of black equality? The Wall of Moms, while perhaps well-intentioned, ends up redirecting attention away from the urgent issue of murdered black bodies. This might ease the consciences of white, affluent women who have previously been silent in the face of black oppression, but its fair to ask: Are they really furthering the cause of justice, or is this another example of white co-optation?

His criticism comes in addition to pleas from other Black leaders urging Oregonians to reject the destruction that some in the crowd are causing, fearing that it is overtaking what should be a pivotal moment in history for Black people. And last week, Gov. Kate Brown issued her own call to Oregonians. The property destruction and the arson need to stop, she said. She pointed to efforts underway to develop better training for law enforcement, urging the community to engage in those conversations rather than allow themselves to be distracted.

Opportunities exist for making real change and threats loom for deepening racial inequities. In addition to the training Brown mentioned, a group in Portland is working toward revitalizing the once thriving Black district in North Portland that was devastated by highway construction and urban renewal projects. Gaps in our educational system are likely to widen as school districts move to online teaching as opposed to in-person classes. The coronavirus pandemic is hitting communities of color far harder than white communities. These issues need and deserve all the resources and attention they can get a message that other elected officials, business owners and community leaders should amplify.

Instead, nightly protests are increasingly about Trump. While Americans will have the chance to solve for Trump in 100 days, the racist problems embedded in our systems will take a much longer timeline. Oregonians should heed the words of Mondain and many others and get to work.

-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung, John Maher and Amy Wang.

Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles.

Read this article:

Editorial: As protest narrative shifts, Black lives must remain the focus - OregonLive

Please let me, friends, thank you in advance for reading todays column. Your indulgence is not unappreciated.

You see, Ive written this, and versions of it, many, many times in my head. Even if I should get it right, I know there will be those who dont agree, who perhaps take issue with my assertions.

To them I would say, I respect your right to disagree. And I really do.

One of the glories of the form of government that was bequeathed us by our founders was the marvelous notion that we are allowed, even encouraged, to not only disagree, but to freely express such sentiments without fear of a government intervention, or worse. There are those who dont acknowledge this.

The First Amendment. To think there are, have always been, millions of human beings who are not now, have never, been permitted freedom of speech. Think of that, my fellow Americans, the next time someone, or some group, exercises their First Amendment rights by speech and or assembly with a viewpoint you oppose.

For those, however, who elect to use such protest as an excuse for vandalism, destruction of property, looting, please know that I abhor their actions, and believe they should be subject to those laws that prohibit such conduct. They are a minority, but do an injustice to those whose protests should be heard.

Back to my original intent regarding todays column. Here goes:

When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, there were those in our land (two countries) at the time, who rejoiced.

You know who they were, and if you had to apply one of the now two much-used, over-used, political labels of our time, you know which would apply.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt died, there were those in our land who were not saddened. You know who.

Eleanor Roosevelt was greatly admired throughout much of the world (this is not hyberpole) during her lifetime. There were those in our land, however, who despised her. You know who.

When John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated, there were those in our land who were pleased. You know who.

When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, there were those in our land who thought he got what was coming to him. You know who.

When Robert (Bobby) Francis Kennedy was assassinated, there were those in our land who were not displeased. You know who.

Referencing those two political labels further, consider the following:

Who opposed the abolition of slavery? You know who.

Who opposed setting aside portions of our wilderness lands so as to preserve them in perpetuity? You know who.

Who opposed splitting up the monopolistic enterprises of the Robber Barons? You know who.

Who opposed establishing child labor laws? You know who.

Who opposed setting minimum wage requirements? You know who.

Who opposed limits on workers hours? You know who.

Who opposed Womens Suffrage? You know who.

Who opposed unions? You know who.

Who opposed programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? You know who.

Who opposed desegregation of our military? You know who.

Who opposes environmental/conservation safeguards? You know who.

Who opposed the Civil Rights Act? You know who.

Who opposed the Voting Rights Act? You know who.

Who opposed racial integration? You know who.

Who opposed/opposes making it easier to vote? You know who.

Who opposed/opposes strengthening gun safety requirements? You know who.

And who have the opposers consistently blamed at one time or another for all these things they have found so objectionable? The media the government the intellectuals the liberals the blacks (there was a time when another word was commonly used) the Jews

Why, there was another country that once had those who used such despicable tactics to come to power in Europe in the 1930s. We know how that came out, dont we?

Perhaps most recent, who opposes mandatory wearing of masks during this pandemic? You know who.

Now, in closing (bet youre glad to read that) let me assert that there are those who fall into the opposers column, who dont buy into all of such a negative, anti-progressive philosophy.

And, conversely, there are some who are on the other side who do not espouse and fully support some of their agenda as well.

If you made it here to the end, thanks for sticking with me. Perhaps more important, as I wrote near the beginning of this much too lengthy expository exercise, if you disagree in full or in part with anything Ive written, I respect your right to do so.

If you agree in full or in part with anything Ive written, well, then you know your history.

Should you choose to meet me here again next week, Ill look forward to it.

Peace.

See the rest here:

Write Again ... And you know who - Washington Daily News - thewashingtondailynews.com

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service!

No one would be surprised to see such a sign posted on the door of a business, especially one near a spot where lots of folks might routinely be barefoot and shirtless a beach, for example. And, for the most part, people dont flip out over the injustice of it all. They put on a shirt and shoes, or they dont go into the store.

But these days, with the coronavirus pandemic raging across the land, theres a small but wildly vocal contingent who view mandates requiring the wearing of masks as some sort of a government plot, an infringement of their rights as Americans.

Theres a word for this sort of thinking: Hooey. In America, we cherish our liberties. Always have, and always will. But they arent limitless. Never have been, and never will be.

The First Amendment to our Constitution, among other things, prohibits the federal government from silencing the citizenry. It reads, in part: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. The protections, of course, concern the rights of individuals in relation to their government.

You dont have a First Amendment right to stand up on your desk at work and declare loudly that your boss is a complete idiot. You can try it, if you feel so inclined, but dont be surprised when your boss exercises the right as your employer and shows you the door. In the same way, you dont have the right, as a free individual in a free society, to march barefoot into a beachside restaurant and demand service the rules be damned. Most people understand this, of course, but some get short-circuited when it comes to masks.

Thankfully, the nations largest retailers have stepped up their game by requiring that masks be worn in all of their stores without exception. Those who dont like it dont have to shop at Costco or Walmart or Target or CVS Health or Walgreens or Lowes or Home Depot.

With increasing evidence that masks are effective in cutting the transmission of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, there ought not be any arguments against wearing masks. Though some havent yet gotten the message, they will next time they head for a store.

Read more from the original source:

Nations retailers do the right thing in mandating masks be worn (Editorial) - masslive.com

SundayJul26,2020at12:01AM

In life, so much can be out of one's control. We all know tragedies hit without warning and alter life in very personal ways. During this unusual time, our community needs unprecedented teamwork that is in our control.

I boldly want to ask every church leader in our community to require every parishioner to wear a mask for indoor services. I know there will be some who believe that this would violate First Amendment rights. However, First Amendment rights do not give any of us liberty to endanger the well-being and life of another.

When I wear a mask, I am protecting you. When you wear a mask you are protecting me. When I watch videos of my 5- and 7-year-old grandchildren playing baseball and they are the only ones wearing masks, I ache. They are protecting others, but no one cares enough to protect them.

I believe all of our religious leaders could make this requirement in the name of saving lives. It is a small gesture and the best we have at the moment.

This is a plea from one Holland resident asking all our religious leaders to stand together. At times in life, courage and teamwork have to supersede individual preferences. I believe this is one of those times.

Peg Luidens

Holland

Original post:

Letter: A plea to our Holland community - Opinion - Monroe Evening News

This year, President Donald Trumps reelection campaign filed defamation lawsuits against three of the countrys most prominent news outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. Then it filed another suit against a somewhat lower-profile news organization: northern Wisconsins WJFW-TV, which serves the 134th-largest market in the country.

The Trump campaign sued the station over what it claims is a false and defamatory ad WJFW aired that showed Trump downplaying the threat of the coronavirus as a line tracking new COVID-19 infections ticks up and up on the screen.

Dozens of stations ran the ad. But the Trump campaign chose to sue just NBC-affiliate WJFW, which is owned by a relatively small company that only has two other local TV stations, both in Bangor, Maine. The campaign did not initially sue the political organization that produced the ad. That group later joined the case as a defendant.

The curious lawsuit is part of a larger, aggressive and exceedingly expensive legal operation by the Trump campaign thats the focus of our latest Trump, Inc. podcast.

The campaign has spent over $16 million on litigation and other legal costs more than any past presidential campaign and more than 10 times what presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has spent on legal services, according to disclosures.

Trump has long boasted about his penchant for filing lawsuits. The president and his businesses have reportedly filed over 2,000 lawsuits. After losing a 2006 defamation lawsuit against the journalist Tim OBrien, Trump told the Post that he knew he couldnt win, but he sued anyway. I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more, Trump said. I did it to make his life miserable, which Im happy about.

As with other areas, Trump has taken his approach to running his personal life and business to the presidency.

Multiple media law experts told us that the suit against tiny WJFW has little chance of succeeding. Susan Seager, a media defense lawyer and adjunct professor at The University of California, Irvine, School of Law, said, The courts are very deferential and very protective of opinions about public figures and political issues.

Scare tactics

So if Trump isnt likely to win, what might he be trying to do? Matthew Sanderson, who served as counsel for Sens. John McCain and Mitt Romney, said he thinks the Trump campaign is engaging in scare tactics.

The reason in my opinion that the Trump campaign is filing these types of lawsuits is not necessarily to punish the Wisconsin station theyre not going to be successful, Sanderson said. The reason theyre doing this is to send a message to the rest of the stations to be careful about running anti-Trump ads.

Unlike many other states, Wisconsin doesnt have a law that makes complainants pay for defendants legal costs if a defamation suit ends up being dismissed as frivolous.

Seager estimates that fighting a defamation lawsuit brought by a high-profile group like the Trump campaign could cost anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000, just to go through the process of getting it dismissed.

We asked the Trump campaign and its lawyers about the suit and why they chose WJFW. They did not respond.

The TV station commented, through a lawyer, that WJFW has no choice but to fight the Trump campaigns attempt to bully a small-market broadcaster into surrendering its First Amendment rights. The public counts on local broadcasters, especially in an election year, to remain free to air criticisms of public officials.

Of course, one critical difference between lawsuits Trump used to file in his business dealings and the ones his campaign is filing is that Trump no longer has to use his own money. His donors are picking up the tab.

Trumps disclosures show his campaign has paid about $200,000 to the firm handling the Wisconsin case.

The campaign has also paid $3.3 million to the firm of attorney Charles Harder, who specializes in high-profile reputation defense lawsuits. Harder is representing the Trump campaign in the three other defamation suits against media organizations. Harder is perhaps best known as the lawyer who successfully sued Gawker into bankruptcy on Hulk Hogans behalf while being surreptitiously funded by venture capitalist Peter Thiel.

Another set of expenses in the disclosures is also interesting. It shows the Trump campaign spent $95,161 on legal & IT consulting paid to The Trump Corporation. Neither the campaign nor Trumps company responded to questions about those charges.

This story first appeared July 23, 2020 in ProPublica.

Continue reading here:

The Trump campaigns legal strategy includes suing a tiny TV station in northern Wisconsin - The CT Mirror

Alfie Oakes and his legal team announced plans to file multiple lawsuits against Collier County and the individual commissioners who voted for the mask mandate passed on Tuesday during a gathering at Oakes Farms Seed to Table Market on Saturday, July 25, 2020. Naples Daily News

At least 200 people gathered outside Seed to Table market in North Naples on Saturday clothed in Americana and holding signs addressing their opposition to Collier County's mask mandate.

Seed to Table owner Alfie Oakes and his legal team, attorney Jim Boatman and state Rep. Anthony Sabatini, R-Howey-in-the-Hills,announced to the crowd they will be filing multiple lawsuits within the next few weeks against Collier County and the commissioners who voted for the mask mandate.

On Tuesday, theCollier County Commissionvoted 3-2 to pass an emergency orderthat requires owners, managers, employees, customers or patrons of a business in unincorporated Collier to wear a face covering while in that business.

Commissioners Burt Saunders, Penny Taylor and Andy Solis voted in favor of implementing a mask mandate.

Oakes and his legal team say the mandate is unlawful and a governmental overreach, attorney Jim Boatman said.

"We will not back down," Oakes said.

By the way: City of Naples to hold special meeting to discuss opting in to Collier County mask mandate

Alfie Oakes speaks during a gathering in opposition to the mask mandate passed by the Collier County Commissioners on Tuesday, at Oakes Farms Seed to Table Market on Saturday, July 25, 2020. Oakes announced that he and his legal team will be filing multiple lawsuits against Collier County and against the three individual commissioners that voted for the mandate.(Photo: Alex Driehaus/Naples Daily News/USA TODAY - FLORIDA NETWORK)

Boatman continued to speak to the crowd of supporters stating that itis their individual right to make decisions for their health care and the commissioners need to stay true to their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Sabatini has filed lawsuits against mask mandates in several other counties around the state.

Throughout the announcement the crowed cheered and clapped in support, sometimes breaking out in a chant yelling, "Alfie!"

Commissioner Taylor said Oakes has the right to sue and that in today's world anybody can sue anyone for anything.

"I guess we will see what the courts have to say," Taylor said.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Commissioner Solis declined to comment and said he would defer to the county attorney.

Commissioner Saunders could not be reached for comment.

Oakes started voicing his opinions and moving forward with the lawsuits because he doesn't want to see people lose their opportunity.

"As we let our liberties go by the wayside we lose opportunity," Oakes said.

Oakes said he grew up poor and builthis own company that now employs 23,000 people.

"I've been able to live the American dream," he said.

A sign detailing Seed to Table's mask exception guidelines hangs outside the entrance to the store during a gathering in opposition to the mask mandate passed by the Collier County Commissioners on Tuesday, at Oakes Farms Seed to Table Market on Saturday, July 25, 2020. Collier County Commissioners who voted against the mandate are shown with Uncle Sam hats, while those that voted for the mandate are depicted above the word socialist.(Photo: Alex Driehaus/Naples Daily News/USA TODAY - FLORIDA NETWORK)

Many people in attendance at Saturday's rally stated they believe the media is creating unnecessary fear and creating division in the country.

Sarah Daniel, 72, of Marco Island, was dressed head to toe in American flag print, a "Make American Great Again" belt and a "Trump 2020" purse.

Daniel said she loves her country and came out to support Oakes because she said they have a country to save.

She mentioned how almost every boy in her high school class fought communism in Vietnam and she is scared for America's children now.

More: Finding Covid-19 exam sites in Naples takes some sleuthing

And: Relief in sight for delays in COVID-19 test results in Southwest Florida

In Lee County: Need a COVID-19 test? Here are some locations

Before Oakes made his announcement the crowed rallied together listening to live music by Jason Beal, who sangBuffalo Springfield's "For What it's Worth," a song commonly sung at civil rights protests.

As the group congregated in front of the store and spilled into the street, a car drove by almost hitting some of the attendees and yelling slurs against President Donald Trump, Seed to Table General Manager Dan St. Martin said.

St. Martin and another employee stepped in to redirect the vehicle, who had two unidentified women inside, as one woman threw a cup at a male attendee. The two women drove off without serious incident.

Jim Gibbs is held back as he yells at the driver of a car after the driver and passenger drove through the parking lot yelling slurs against President Donald Trump and threw a cup out the window during a gathering in opposition to the mask mandate passed by the Collier County Commissioners on Tuesday, at Oakes Farms Seed to Table Market on Saturday, July 25, 2020.(Photo: Alex Driehaus/Naples Daily News/USA TODAY - FLORIDA NETWORK)

Oakes has been quite vocal, and litigious, in the last few months.

Earlier this month, he filed a federal suit against the Lee County school district, which had dumped its multi-million dollar deal with his firm after he calledGeorge Floyd a "disgraceful career criminal." Floyd,a Black man who died in police custody in Minneapolis on May 25, sparked protests against racial injustice acrossthe country, including Southwest Florida. Prosecutors have filed charges in his death

Oakes also had declared that COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter movement are "hoaxes." After that, the school district"severed ties" with Oakes and his company, which had been providing products for students, such as fresh fruits and vegetables.

Oakes, who isseeking $50 million in damages, said it was a First Amendment right to free speech.

The district wasin a three-year contract with the Naples-based supplier and had an annual renewaloption to continue services through 2024. Services during the first year of the contract, from July 2018 to June 2019, were estimated to cost $4.9 million, according to school board documents.

Oakes also filed a separate complaint with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, accusing school district officials of violating the Sunshine Law open meeting rules.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/2020/07/25/seed-table-owner-legal-team-announce-lawsuits-against-collier-county-mask-mandate/5506537002/

See the rest here:

Seed to Table owner, legal team announce lawsuits against Collier County for mask mandate - Naples Daily News

Contents

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government. The amendment was adopted in 1791 along with nine other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights a written document protecting civil liberties under U.S. law. The meaning of the First Amendment has been the subject of continuing interpretation and dispute over the years. Landmark Supreme Court cases have dealt with the right of citizens to protest U.S. involvement in foreign wars, flag burning and the publication of classified government documents.

During the summer of 1787, a group of politicians, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, gathered in Philadelphia to draft a new U.S. Constitution.

Antifederalists, led by the first governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They felt the new constitution gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states. They further argued that the Constitution lacked protections for peoples individual rights.

The debate over whether to ratify the Constitution in several states hinged on the adoption of a Bill of Rights that would safeguard basic civil rights under the law. Fearing defeat, pro-constitution politicians, called Federalists, promised a concession to the antifederalists a Bill of Rights.

James Madison drafted most of the Bill of Rights. Madison was a Virginia representative who would later become the fourth president of the United States. He created the Bill of Rights during the 1st United States Congress, which met from 1789 to 1791 the first two years that President George Washington was in office.

The Bill of Rights, which was introduced to Congress in 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment text reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While the First Amendment protected freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition, subsequent amendments under the Bill of Rights dealt with the protection of other American values including the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Freedom of speech gives Americans the right to express themselves without having to worry about government interference. Its the most basic component of freedom of expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what types of speech is protected. Legally, material labeled as obscene has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection, for example, but deciding what qualifies as obscene has been problematic. Speech provoking actions that would harm otherstrue incitement and/or threatsis also not protected, but again determining what words have qualified as true incitement has been decided on a case-by-case basis.

This freedom is similar to freedom of speech, in that it allows people to express themselves through publication.

There are certain limits to freedom of the press. False or defamatory statements called libel arent protected under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, prohibits the government from establishing a state religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

While not explicitly stated, this amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.

The First Amendment protects the freedom to peacefully assemble or gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political or religious purposes. It also protects the right to protest the government.

The right to petition can mean signing a petition or even filing a lawsuit against the government.

Here are landmark Supreme Court decisions related to the First Amendment.

Free Speech:

Schenck v. United States, 1919: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft during World War I.

The Schenck decision helped define limits of freedom of speech, creating the clear and present danger standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court viewed draft resistance as dangerous to national security.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Texas v. Johnson, 1990: Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court reversed a Texas courts decision that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. This Supreme Court Case invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag-burning.

Freedom of the Press:

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Freedom of Religion:

Reynolds v. United States (1878): This Supreme Court case upheld a federal law banning polygamy, testing the limits of religious liberty in America. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but not from actions such as marriage.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961): The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to close on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews argued the law was unfair to them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. In this case, Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, worked in a textile mill. When her employer switched from a five-day to six-day workweek, she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. When she applied for unemployment compensation, a South Carolina court denied her claim.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): This Supreme Court decision struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to reimburse Catholic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in those schools. This Supreme Court case established the Lemon Test for determining when a state or federal law violates the Establishment Clausethats the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from declaring or financially supporting a state religion.

Ten Commandments Cases (2005): In 2005, the Supreme Court came to seemingly contradictory decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled that the display of a six-foot Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital was constitutional. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses violated the First Amendment.

Right to Assemble & Right to Petition:

NAACP v. Alabama (1958): When Alabama Circuit Court ordered the NAACP to stop doing business in the state and subpoenaed the NAACP for records including their membership list, the NAACP brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of the NAACP, which Justice John Marshall Harlan II writing: This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1962): On March 2, 1961, 187 black students marched from Zion Baptist Church to the South Carolina State House, where they were arrested and convicted of breaching the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to reverse the convictions, arguing that the state infringed on the free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition of the students.

The Bill of Rights; White House.History of the First Amendment; The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Schenck v. United States; C-Span.

Here is the original post:

First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms ...

This is not a pro-Christian post. If you are a worshipper of the moon and enjoy howling at it or gathering mask-less in confined spaces with your fellow lunar disciples while engaging in all manner of ritualistic observances (mooning?), more power to you.

Again, this is not a pro-Christian post it is a pro-freedom post.

In the United States of America, we have freedom of religion or at least we thought we did.

As long as your observances are not depriving others of life, liberty or property, have at it.

Lately, though, this inalienable right has fallen under attack and a court whose justices swore oaths to uphold it (along with our other essential liberties) are allowing it to happen.

The U.S. supreme court led by increasingly left-leaning chief justice John Roberts recently ruled against a San Diego, California church after it sought relief from a state law limiting attendance at religious gatherings. The church argued this edict discriminated against religious institutions at a time when abortion clinics, liquor stores and marijuana shops were allowed to operate without similar limits in place.

(Click to view)

(Via: Getty Images)

Nonetheless, according to Roberts, the churchs claim that its constitutional rights had been violated was quite improbable. And that the elected officials who imposed the edict had acted within the broad limits granted to politically accountable officials of the states during times of crisis.

Needless to say, we were livid not only at the ruling and those who supported it, but at the door it opened for further discrimination.

This is a deeply troubling ruling one which poses a clear and present danger to the most fundamental of all American liberties, we wrote at the time. As a result of Roberts latest sellout, the highest court in the nation has formally created conditions under which it is acceptable for governments to not only suppress religious freedom but actively discriminate against religion itself.

Not surprisingly, the courts ruling has emboldened liberal politicians to take further steps against religious freedom and the court is clearly not going to do anything to stop them.

This week, Roberts once again displayed his contempt for religious liberty by joining the four liberal justices on the bench in denying a request from a church located near Carson City, Nevada. This congregation had asked the justices to overturn a similar state law capping church attendance a law imposed at a time when casinos, gyms, restaurants and other entities were allowed to operate at fifty percent of their posted capacity.

(SPONSORED CONTENT)

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Justice Samuel Alito ripped the majority opinion, saying while it was not surprising Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees this courts willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing.

Indeed it is

We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility, Alito continued. For months now, states and their subdivisions have responded to the pandemic by imposing unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including the free exercise of religion.

The best response in the case, however, came from justice Neil Gorsuch.

In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion, he wrote. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion.

Here is his masterful, one-paragraph dissent

The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, posses unusual challenges, he concluded. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

Amen to that

John Roberts has abandoned his oath, U.S. senator Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted. But, on the upside, maybe Nevada churches should set up craps tables? Then they could open?

Such is the sad state of religious liberty in the land of the free.

-FITSNews

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your own letter to the editor (or guest column) via-email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE. Want to help support what were doing? SUBSCRIBE HERE.

Visit link:

First Amendment Watch: Another Successful Attack On Religious Liberty In America - FITSNews

Published: 7/26/2020 12:01:16 AM

Its time for our members of Congress and for all of us to yell fire, because we are in a crowded and volatile theater. The Trump administration and its militarized troops have declared war a revolutionary war against the American people.

In Portland, Ore., unarmed and nonviolent protesters are being rounded up and taken away by men dressed in camouflage, with their nametags removed and faces masked. These troops, decked out in the latest wartime military gear, forcibly shove the protesters into unmarked vehicles (vans, not police cruisers). They dont have warrants, they dont have probable cause, and they refuse to indicate what, if any, crimes they are arresting these Americans for having committed.

And who are the protesters being rounded up in this brutal fashion? They are part of ongoing demonstrations, advocating for racial justice and an end to police violence against citizens of color. They have been marching, along with the Black Lives Matter movement and white and brown allies, seeking a reconciliation among all racial and ethnic groups and a reorientation of our economy in a way thats fair to everyone, regardless of wealth, race, ethnicity, or religion.

As such, these demonstrations are part of the most sacred American values: the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These rights, along with freedom of speech and assembly, are enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. These bedrock principles of our democracy have been at the heart of Americas uniqueness and greatness for centuries. They are the beacon we have held up for other nations to emulate.

Now that our fundamental American values are under threat from a revolutionary president, all of us political leaders, community leaders, and we grassroots Americans must forcefully reject Trumps latest moves toward authoritarianism. We should make it abundantly clear that we refuse to go down the road that Germany went down in the 1930s. We will not succumb to the ruthless rule of a dictator. In America, we the people will democratically decide what policies shall guide our nation.

As Sen. Jeff Merkley said: These authoritarian Trump/Barr tactics designed to eliminate any accountability are absolutely unacceptable in America, and must end.

KEN BARNES

Contoocook

Follow this link:

Letter: A revolution in reverse - Concord Monitor