Category Archives: Freedom

A New York Times reporter recently interviewed a Missouri man who, like many Missourians, refused vaccination. Asked why, he responded in a word: freedom.

Liberal democracies are founded on the premise that nations flourish when freedom is maximized. Personal freedoms are limited, therefore, by only three categories of moral constraint. The first is basic human rights. We are not at liberty to physically harm others, incarcerate them without cause or steal their stuff. The second constraint derives from consent. If I sign a contract, make a promise or take an oath, my liberties are constrained by the terms of that contract, promise or oath.

Though many would disagree, the Missouri man expressed a sincere belief that his choice to forego vaccination harmed no one. And since he didnt consent to vaccination, his decision to remain unvaccinated seems morally permissible according to these first two categories of constraint.

But theres a third category. As philosopher Michael Sandel explains, we share a life story with family, community and country. We, therefore, have obligations of solidarity to family members (regardless of past wrongs), neighbors (even if theyre obnoxious) and countrymen (in good times and bad). This third category is where patriotism lives.

Typically, theres no tension between freedom and patriotism. Indeed, we often celebrate those who bravely assert their rights (Patrick Henry, Rosa Parks). Sometimes, however, patriotism means surrendering personal liberties.

During WWII and after 9/11, a spirit of sacrifice animated America. We accepted new restrictions (rationing, TSA screening) and stampeded military recruitment centers.

Today, theres a new threat to the Republic. COVID-19 has killed one in 500 of us.

Fortunately, we can win this war. As with smallpox, polio, and measles, weve developed weapons to crush the enemy: vaccines.

But theres one stipulation: vaccines protect populations (not just individuals) only if populations (not just individuals) get vaccinated. So, as in 1941 and 2001, freedom and patriotism are in tension. Our patriotic duty to protect our fellow Americans from harm requires a sacrifice of individual freedom.

Days after the interview, COVID-19 killed the Missouri gentleman. He died asserting his rights. His final stand, however, was tragically unpatriotic.

Roger Herbert

Brevard

Go here to read the rest:

Freedom And Patriotism - The Transylvania Times - The Transylvania Times

The centre-left politician in pole position to replace Angela Merkel as German chancellor has pinpointed the decision to end freedom of movement with Europe after Brexit as the reason for Britains petrol crisis.

Olaf Scholz, who is seeking to form a coalition government after the SPD emerged as the biggest party in Germanys federal elections, said he hoped Boris Johnson would be able to deal with the consequences of the UKs exit from the EU.

The free movement of labour is part of the European Union, and we worked very hard to convince the British not to leave the union, he said.

Now they decided different, and I hope that they will manage the problems coming from that, because I think it is constantly an important idea for all of us to make it happen that there will be good relations between the EU and the UK, but this is a problem to be solved.

A number of EU member states, including Germany, have longstanding HGV driver shortages. The most heavily affected countries are Poland (a shortage of 124,000 drivers) and Germany (45,000 to 60,000). But unlike in the UK, companies in the EU have been able to rely on nationals from their neighbours to fill the gaps, and the problems of empty supermarket shelves and panic-buying at petrol station forecourts have been avoided.

On Monday pump prices for fuel in the UK hit an eight-year high as forecourts ran dry, Downing Street faced demands to give ambulance drivers, healthcare staff and other essential workers priority access to fuel, and there were calls for calm as UK fuel suppliers said they expected demand to return to normal in the coming days.

The army is being put on standby to help but ministers decided against immediately deploying troops to drive lorries.

It emerged on Monday night that the NHS was being forced to postpone appointments for cancer patients and other people with serious conditions as a result of the fuel crisis.

Several cancer patients due to attend appointments this week at University College hospital, one of Londons largest hospitals, have been told they will have to be rescheduled, the Guardian has learned.

A UCLH spokesperson confirmed that a small number of patients were having appointments rearranged, but insisted that no patients requiring urgent treatment would have their treatment delayed.

The fuel crisis has sparked a debate over whether and to what degree Brexit is to blame. Last week Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, said Europes driver shortage was equal to or worse than Britains, and claimed leaving the EU had helped provide a solution.

But Anna Soubry, a former Tory business minister who quit the party over Brexit, said Scholz was right and added: Its like something happened to our country and no one is allowed to speak truth to the power of Boris Johnson and his Brexit.

She said: We are now facing up to the reality of Brexit. We have got shortages. We are going to have inflation and we are not going to be the country we were before we took this decision. Saying this stuff isnt criticising the people who voted for it.

The criticism is levelled at the leaders of the leave campaign who went out and told lies to the British people and who promised sunlit uplands.

The shadow justice secretary, David Lammy, blamed a bad Brexit deal and said Labour should make this clear to the public. This is their [the governments] deal: this is the consequences, he said.

We exited the customs union hauliers now pay tariffs to come into the country the incentives to be here arent there in the same way.

A report from Transport Intelligence, a research company specialising in the logistics industry, described the UK as entering a Bermuda triangle of Brexit, pandemic and tax reforms/peak seasons, leading to a pressing driver shortage in the UK.

Scholz echoed Johnsons own explanation for the shortage of drivers in some European countries. He said: Let me just add it might have to do something with the question of wages They want to know if its something very good for their whole life and if you understand that being a trucker is something which many people really like it to be, and you find not enough [people], this has something to do with working conditions and this has to be thought about.

The accumulation of problems in the UK in recent weeks from empty supermarket shelves, gas shortages, a lack of petrol on forecourts and the short supply of CO2 required for services ranging from the running of abattoirs to the production of fizzy drinks has been seized upon in the European media as being part of the Brexit fallout.

Libration, a French newspaper, ran a front page with an empty toilet paper roll bearing the words: Brexit: Les lendemains qui dchantent (The tomorrows that failed to deliver).

According to Transport Intelligence, Brexit made it legally impossible to recruit foreign HGV drivers, while the Covid pandemic created a backlog of tests and led to about 15,000 eastern European drivers returning home, many of them for good.

The number of EU nationals driving HGVs in the UK rose from 10,000 to 45,000 between 2010 and 2017, and fell to 42,000 in early 2020. From March to June 2020 the number of EU HGV drivers declined to 25,000, recovering only slightly to 28,000 by the end of the year.

The government has introduced tax changes that Transport Intelligence said had exacerbated the exodus from the UK by obliging all contractors with a turnover of 10m or 50 staff to pay full tax and national insurance on their drivers, starting in April 2021.

Michael Clover, the head of commercial development at Transport Intelligence, said: It is a perfect storm really. We dont have the lever of other international drivers to come in like most of Europe so capacity can be shuffled around, because we are no longer in the EU. Poland has for a long time been a net exporter of drivers but you can fill some of those gaps with drivers from Lithuania or Hungary or from Romania, Bulgaria and a few other EU states.

See original here:

End to freedom of movement behind UK fuel crisis, says Merkels likely successor - The Guardian

Danger of freedom without responsibility

There are many people who need to revisit the phrase: "Freedom is not free." Because there is an appalling lack of personal responsibility in this country ["Hochul: Deadline firm for vaccine mandate," News, Sept. 23].

When I was a boy, my dad taught me all about personal responsibility. He told me I was not only responsible for myself in my decisions, but also that my choices have ramifications that could positively or negatively impact the lives of others.

This seems to be lost on much of the population today and is woefully lacking in many of our feckless "leaders" in Congress. This does not only relate to COVID-19 policies and mask debates, but also issues like climate change, gun safety and the proliferation of dishonesty in our government and some of the media.

Our freedom is a right we should all cherish, and I do. But freedom without responsibility often leads to anarchy.

Jerry Giammatteo, Sayville

Former Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy is just that "former." Yet Newsday filed a Freedom of Information Law request to pry into an agreement he made when he walked away from his position and relinquished his campaign monies, which was to be "under seal" and "confidential" and "privileged" ["Levy: D.A. deal confidential," News, Sept. 23].

Obviously, his arm was twisted or he was threatened so he wouldnt run for reelection and would just walk away. Why humiliate the man further when hes no longer in office and gave up so much?

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

Where is the oversight when it comes to irrelevant matters? Why not let this former government official go off into the sunset with his secrets intact. Doesnt he deserve that after "giving in" and not running for office in Suffolk County?

Barbara Gilman, Old Bethpage

The column "Excitement finds new home: Belmont" [Opinion, Sept. 22] laments the fact that Nassau Coliseum remains closed. What the essay fails to note is that amid a pandemic that shut down many venues, Nassau Live Center funded almost $7.6 million to pay for operating losses incurred this past year. We absorbed these losses knowing that this historic structure needs to be creatively reinvented if it is to complement Belmonts new role.

The columnist seeks "certainty" in defining the future of the Coliseum. That would require knowing the future of the next COVID-19 variant, the investment required to address long-neglected Coliseum amenities, and the approval process required to implement our strategic vision.

The only "certainty" is that Nassau Live will repurpose the Coliseum in a manner consistent with our pledge to ensure that it fulfills its potential as a vital, exciting and strong economic and entertainment destination for the people of Nassau County.

Nicholas A. Mastroianni II, New York

The writer is manager of Nassau Live Center.

This tragic loss of a beautiful young woman is made even worse by the behavior of others ["Warrant of arrest issued," News, Sept. 24]. If Brian Laundries parents loved Gabby Petito as much as they said they did, then why didnt they text her parents when Laundrie showed up at home alone?

All they had to say was that Laundrie came home without Petito and isnt talking to us you may want to try to find her. That van was registered to Petito, and Laundrie shows up in the van without her? Why wasnt that enough for the police to act? Why couldnt they arrest him for stolen property?

My deepest sympathies to Petitos family. Their lives are forever changed.

Joan Lazaunik, Great Neck

I feel the Utah police have blood on their hands for not arresting Brian Laundrie. They witnessed firsthand Gabby Petitos mental state. You cannot tell me that the police were unaware of underlying bad drama going on. This would not have happened if it took place in New York.

Chris Viola-Weiss, Oceanside

After Hurricane Ida flooded this area with a record rainfall, we can expect severe storms to continue due to climate change. Besides preparing for these events with considerable expense, we must also prevent climate change from worsening. The UN secretary general announced we are at the climate "tipping point" much sooner than predicted, and drastic action must be taken to avoid future catastrophe ["UN chief: The world must wake up, " News, Sept. 22].

Congress is finalizing a reconciliation bill that includes actions to combat climate change. These include reducing carbon emissions by 50% and requiring the U.S. power grid to be 80% emissions-free by 2030. This bill is our last chance to make a real difference and contain climate change before it is too late. We must not miss this window of opportunity to save the planet for ourselves and future generations.

John Day, Bellrose

View post:

Freedom, the Coliseum, Gabby Petito case and more - Newsday

Published: 9/27/2021 7:00:14 AM

We Americans value our freedom to make good choices for our families and our communities. The Freedom to Vote Act ensures that every American who is eligible to vote has the freedom to vote. What is the difference? By providing minimum national standards for registration and voting, the Freedom to Vote Act will make the ballot box more accessible to all eligible Americans across the country.

Here in NH, some folks were unable to vote easily in 2020 because of disability, lack of childcare or limited job flexibility. Because our state has not modernized with online voter registration, for example, registering to vote relies on face-to-face engagement with an election official. Absentee registration, allowed last year due to COVID-19, is a complicated process. Difficulty registering is a needless barrier, and it means that although these Granite Staters have the right to vote, they do not have the freedom to vote. Fair and equal access to the ballot box is important so that our families and our communities are heard in the NH legislature and in Congress. Our vote means we have a say in the issues that matter to us, such as affordable health care, good jobs, quality education and an end to the pandemic. Polling shows that Americans of all political parties support these values. Our Senators need to hear that you support the Freedom to Vote Act, too.

Jay Newton

Gilford

Read the original:

Letter: The freedom to vote is important - Concord Monitor

American democracy is in urgent need of repair. State legislatures nationwide are pushing legislation that would roll back voting rights and place election administration in the hands of partisans. Redistricting is under way in several states, drawing congressional maps that will be in place for a decade. And campaign spending is increasingly dominated by contributions from the wealthiest Americans, marginalizing the concerns of everyday citizens.

On September 14, a group of Democratic senators led by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced theFreedom to Vote Act, a package of reforms that would be the most consequential voting rights and anti-corruption bill passed in more than half a century. The bill addresses the biggest problems facing our democracy, from efforts to restrict access to the ballot, to campaign finance laws, to voter roll purges, to extreme partisan gerrymandering.

The Brennan Centers Wendy Weiser and Daniel I. Weiner discuss the potential impact of this blockbuster legislation, the crises that make it necessary, and what stands in the way of it becoming the law of the land.

Weiner:The Freedom to Vote Act is historic legislation that would be the most consequential voting rights and anti-corruption bill passed in more than half a century. It tackles the biggest problems currently facing our democracy by setting national standards to protect access to the vote, ending partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, beginning to overhaul our broken campaign finance system, and creating new safeguards against subversion of the electoral process.

Weiser:We are facing a multifaceted crisis in our democracy. There is a concerted and highly successful push across the country to restrict access to voting, primarily targeting voters of color. We are starting a redistricting process that is going to once again be distorted by extreme partisan gerrymandering, much of which also targets communities of color. Our campaign finance system is now increasingly dominated by a small group of megadonors who are calling the shots and overshadowing ordinary citizens. And we have a new push to empower partisan legislators to take over the machinery of elections or the vote counting process, coupled with attacks on election workers, threatening the integrity of our elections.

We are facing these crises with fewer legal protections than at any time in more than half a century. The Supreme Court has severely hampered the Voting Rights Act, which used to protect us against discriminatory changes in voting laws and practices. The Court has rolled back constitutional and statutory voting protections in other ways, and it has outright prohibited federal courts from policing partisan gerrymandering, no matter how much that offends constitutional principles. The Court has also effectively gutted our nations campaign finance laws.

Where the Court wont step in, Congress can. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to regulate federal elections. And given how much is at stake, Congress must. If it doesnt, things will only get worse. We have not seen the end of these efforts to suppress the vote or subvert democratic elections. This abuse of the democratic process will not stop unless real guardrails are put in place.

Weiner:The Freedom to Vote Act contains the vast majority of the most critical provisions that were in the For the People Act, although it does also reflect some important concessions that were needed to achieve unity among Senate Democrats and address concerns raised by Senate Republicans and election administrators. For example, it streamlines some of the voting provisions that existed in the For the People Act to provide more flexibility for states and election officials on how to adopt the requirements. It also scales back the small donor matching program and some of the other campaign finance provisions that were in the For the People Act, although the provisions that remain would still be a huge improvement over the status quo.

Like the For the People Act before it, the Freedom to Vote Act is complementary to theJohn R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would protect voters from racial discrimination by restoring and updating the full protections of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights era.

The original VRA required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval, known as preclearance, for changes to their voting rules. These provisions were neutered by the Supreme Court in its 2013Shelby County v. Holderdecision on the grounds that they were outdated. The John Lewis Act would restore the preclearance process and update it to respond to modern conditions by creating a new formula to determine which places are covered and singling out certain practices that are known to be associated with discrimination for extra scrutiny.

The reality is that we need to have national standards for access to the vote, but then we also need to restore the historic safeguards of the Voting Rights Act because Congress cant anticipate every type of discrimination. The John Lewis Act is a critical backstop to prevent racial discrimination in voting that fits together with the Freedom to Vote Act.

Weiser:The Protecting Our Democracy Act is separate legislation that would shore up urgently needed safeguards against abuse of power in the executive branch, and protect ethics and the rule of law. All three bills are necessary. Given the scope and scale of the current crisis, we need a comprehensive approach to strengthen and secure our democracy.

Weiser:We closely track the state legislation to restrict access to voting, and believe that the Freedom to Vote Act would thwart the vast majority of the restrictions in new state laws restricting access to voting.

The Freedom to Vote Act creates baseline national standards that supersede more restrictive state voting rules. It also strengthens the legal standards for challenging laws that unduly burden voting rights, making it easier to win lawsuits when rights are violated. It works hand in hand with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which provides more tools to push back against discriminatory voting changes that restrict access to the ballot box.

Weiner:I would look at that in terms of three critical areas. The first is setting national standards to protect the right to vote. That includes minimum standards for early and mail voting, modernizing voter registration, and restoration of the right to vote to formerly incarcerated people.

The second is the elimination of extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional districts, which has been a plague on our republic since the founding era but has become far more sophisticated in recent decades, resulting in durable gerrymanders that insulate elected officials even from very significant shifts in public opinion.

The third is the small donor matching system, which would create a path for campaigns for Congress to be funded through contributions from everyday Americans. The bill allows states to opt into the program, under which small donations to participating congressional candidates would be matched 6-to-1. This would give candidates the option of funding their campaigns through broad-based grassroots support, expand opportunities for those who lack wealthy networks to run for office, and help center the concerns of ordinary people in the political process. And it would do all these things through an innovative funding mechanism that doesnt rely on taxpayer funds. States that dont want to opt into this system could use the money for other improvements to their election systems.

Weiser:The Freedom to Vote Act also innovates by countering new tactics of election subversion, attempts to thwart the electoral process to undermine fair election outcomes.

While vote suppression legislation is a form of election subversion, across the county we have seen new and more brazen attempts to subvert election outcomes. These include attempts to empower partisans to literally overturn election outcomes, to states handing over the machinery of elections or the vote accounting process to partisan legislators and other partisan actors, to the attacks on and intimidation of elections officials. The Freedom to Vote Act directly addresses these threats to the integrity of our election system in a more robust way than weve ever seen before.

The bill would also end the scourge of undisclosed large-scale spending in elections, which has grown dramatically over the last decade since the Supreme Courts notoriousCitizens Uniteddecision.

Weiner:The main one is that under current Senate rules, you need 60 votes to advance legislation past a filibuster. Something people dont tend to understand is that the filibuster is not something that you either have or you dont have it has actually been changed hundreds of times in its history and there are a number of waysthe filibuster could be alteredagain to preserve what some people see as it its deliberative benefits.

Weiser:Democracy reform must happen, and the path forward will require some adjustment to the filibuster rules if the Freedom to Vote Act is going to move forward without 10 Republicans supporting it. As Senator Manchin has said, Inaction is not an option. The Senate cannot let arcane procedural rules stand between the country and the legislation we need to avert this crisis for our democracy.

Weiner:One of the enduring challenges on this issue is that elected leaders have sometimes assumed that these topics arent kitchen table issues that actually matter to voters, so there has been temptation to give them short shrift. So the number one thing you can do is make it known to your elected leaders that you care about this. It does not matter if you live in a red, blue, or purple state. All of the reforms in this bill have broad bipartisan support. These policies deserve the votes of every member of Congress.

Weiser:We also have an unprecedented opportunity, not just to stop the crisis from getting worse, but to turn things around and put the American people not special interests or political factions at the center of our democracy.

Continue reading here:

Breaking Down the Freedom to Vote Act - brennancenter.org

Good morning! No need to adjust your dials, but its me coming to you on a Monday instead of a Thursday! Mr. Keefer is away today, so you get me on this crisp and clear fall morning. Despite everything happening off the field, the D.C.-area soccer concerns had a good weekend, so lets jump right into that.

Julian Gressel, Paul Arriola star as D.C. United storms past FC Cincinnati in 4-2 win

D.C. United were able to dispatch FC Cincinnati without much problem, going up 4-0 before allowing to late goals after having taken off key players to keep them fresh for the midweek. Julian Gressel continues his excellent play, and is now in second place in the league in assists, behind only the consensus MLS MVP frontrunner.

Five things from D.C. United casting FC Cincinnati aside

Jason, Adam, Ryan, and myself dive deeper into the game, talking about the leagues best set piece team, Uniteds attacking overloads, Luciano Acosta, and much more.

Washington Spirit dig deep in comeback 2-1 win over Kansas City NWSL

The Washington Spirit have been in turmoil on and off the field, but in their first game in almost a month brings a much needed win.

Embattled owner Steve Baldwin and president of sporting operations Larry Best, both of whom having been the subject of multiple investigative articles from the Washington Post, were not in attendance at the game; owner Y. Michele Kang, investor Devin Talbott, and Ben Olsen were all there, however.

Go vote!

Loudoun Uniteds Allexon Saravia made his debut for El Salvador. Congrats Allexon!

The much delayed training center and office space for D.C. United in Leesburg is almost complete! That combined with finalizing Segra Fields updates solidify Uniteds presence across the area.

Thats all I have this morning. Whats up?

Here is the original post:

Julian Gressel, Washington Spirit, and more: Freedom Kicks! - Black And Red United

Billy Gobitis was not a troublemaker, but he was in trouble at school. Big trouble. Along with his older sister, Lillian, age 12, 10-year-old Billy had been expelled. The year was 1935; the place was Minersville, Pennsylvania; and the Gobitis siblings, in defiance of a school district requirement, had refused to salute the American flag. Other students threw rocks at them. Billys teacher tried to physically force his arm into the salute position (in those days, this meant extending the arm upward at a forty-five-degree angle with the palm turned up, a gesture with eerie similarity to the Roman salute, then popular in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany).

Billy was a respectful boy, and he felt he should explain his actions in a letter to the schoolboard. I am a true follower of Christ, the young Jehovahs Witness explained, scrawling out a determined, if somewhat uneven schoolboy cursive. I do not salute the flag, not because I do not love my country, but I love my country and I love God more and I must obey his commandments. One of those commandments, Billy believed, forbade worshiping idols, and he thought the flag salute fell afoul of that command.

Billys family suffered for their convictions. The community boycotted their grocery store. Some family members were physically attacked. The children were placed in a private school, which the parents could barely afford. To offset the cost of private tuition, Billys father brought a lawsuit against the Minersville School District. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court.

And lost badly. By a vote of 8 to 1, the justices affirmed the school districts decisions. By then it was 1940, and Billy Gobitis was 15. Europe was at war, and America was in turmoil. Requiring students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance was the norm at schools across the country. The court explained that such practices helped to evoke that unifying element without which there can ultimately be no liberties, civil or religious. Exempting the Gobitis children might cast doubts in the minds of the other children which would themselves weaken the effect of the exercise. Besides, the school districts countervailing interest was of the highest order: National unity, the justices observed, is the basis of national security.

As for the Gobitis claims that their religious liberty had been infringed, the court explained that Billy and Lillians parents remained free to teach them whatever religious principles they pleased at home.

The decision was a bitter disappointment for the Gobitis family. For Jehovahs Witnesses around the country, it proved devastating. Scored by the countrys highest court as agents of disloyalty, Witnesses faced a flurry of ferocious persecution. From Maine to Wyoming, Witnesses were beaten and jailed, tarred and feathered, their sanctuaries burned to the ground. The ACLU told the Department of Justice that 1,500 Witnesses had been physically attacked in 300 communities nationwide. Theyre traitors, explained one sheriff as Witnesses were driven out of his community; the Supreme Court says so. Aint you heard?

The justices read reports of these events with horror and alarm. Several began rethinking their earlier decision. Some stated publicly that they had gotten it wrong. In 1943, the chance came to revisit the issue in a strikingly similar case. This one involved a West Virginia Witness, also suspended for refusing to salute the flag.

The court announced its decision in the case of West Virginia v. Barnette on June 14, 1943. Six justices voted in favor of the Witness and against the precedent from the Gobitis case. Somewhere, 18-year-old Billy Gobitis must have been cheering. Appropriately enough, it was Flag Day.

The courts opinion, by Justice Robert Jackson, is perhaps the most eloquent statement of First Amendment freedoms in Supreme Court history. Jackson was a gifted prose stylist, and in the Barnette case he rose to the occasion with arguably the greatest opinion he ever wrote.

The opinion concluded with a ringing climax. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, Jackson wrote, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. By forcing students to salute the flag in violation of their religious convictions, the court held, school districts around the country were unconstitutionally prescribing orthodoxy.

But shouldnt unelected judges defer to decisions made by the peoples democratically appointed representatives? Not when fundamental rights are at play. The very purpose of a Bill of Rights, Jackson explained, was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property, Jackson continued, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Most Americans know this in their bones, even if they know little else about the Constitution. There are some rights that no official can infringe, some spheres of life where government power must not intrude. Popular sovereignty is the foundation of our constitutional order, but there are some things even more sacred than collective self-governance, some rights beyond even democracys reach. The Declaration of Independence calls such rights inalienable; they cannot be surrendered or sold. Legitimate government exists to secure them. No government is authorized to subvert them.

As I have suggested earlier in this series, the most basic protection for individual rights lies in the Constitutions structure in its reciprocal checks and balances, as well as in the separation of powers within the national government and between the national government and the states. But these structural protections, though powerful, are incomplete. The Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, supplemented and applied against the states by the 14th Amendment exists to plug the gaps.

On the whole, it has plugged them remarkably well. There have been lapses, to be sure. It took the Supreme Court too long to acknowledge the full promise of the 14th Amendment, and it has taken the country as a whole too long to make Bill of Rights guarantees a reality for all Americans. But focusing too fixedly on past failures or infamous Supreme Court rulings can obscure the powerful if mundane reality of millions of Americans, across multiple generations, speaking what they think, publishing what they please, and worshiping (or not) as the Holy Spirit moves them.

This mundane reality has been possible, however, not only because of what the Bill of Rights says or what the Supreme Court rules, but also and especially because of what the American people have internalized: an unshakable determination to defend and exercise their foremost freedoms, and to allow others to do the same. For most of our modern history, the Bill of Rights has been a source of unity and consensus the preeminent object of our constitutional patriotism.

Consensus around the Bill of Rights has been broad and deep, so much so that in recent decades the fiercest controversies regarding individual rights have played out at the margins. In 1965, for instance, the Supreme Court found in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights a promised right to privacy. Eight years later, this ostensible right to privacy became the basis of the Courts ruling in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution guarantees a robust right to abortion. Roe has proved a source of intense and enduring controversy, as have rulings related to a host of other hot-button issues from affirmative action to same-sex marriage, from assisted suicide to corporate political speech. These debates have been intense, not only because the societal stakes so high, but because it is not always clear (to put it mildly) how (or if) the Constitutions 18th-century text applies to these 21st-century problems.

In some respects, of course, the Bill of Rights does reflect the particular concerns of the 18th century. Its nice to know, for instance, that the government cant require us to quarter troops in peacetime, but most of us dont often think about the third amendment. In other respects, however, the Bill of Rights has aged astonishingly well. The Constitutions protections with respect to criminal procedures remain remarkably relevant, and in my view the essential guarantees of the First Amendment religious liberty, the freedoms of speech and of the press, the right of peaceful protest are as timeless as they are priceless.

For a long time, they were also uncontroversial, despite debates at the margins. Running through all the fierce, rights-related debates of the late-20th and early 21st century were a set of common convictions about the right of all individuals to think for themselves and to express their thoughts in words of their own choosing. Throughout the stormy constitutional controversies that have attended Americas culture wars, contending factions all steered by the fixed star that Justice Jackson extolled back in 1943.

Today we seem to be losing sight of that star. In recent years, too many of us have reneged on our common commitments to allow others to voice unpopular opinions, to live the fundamental tenets of their faith and to gather together to call for reform. Too many have forgotten that protected protests must be peaceful, and that a vigorous press is essential to democratic freedom. Too many have forgotten the wisdom, spoken long ago by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandies, that the remedy to be applied to false or wicked speech is more speech, not enforced silence.

I believe that this applies in principle to private actors as well as to the government. Freedom survives and flourishes through our collective commitment to the principles of freedom. If Americans generally abandon their allegiance to the paramount freedoms of the First Amendment, there will be little the Supreme Court (or anyone else) can do to save us from ourselves. Nor will it help much if we preserve our constitutional liberties against government overreach, only to surrender them to the prying eyes or censorious policies of powerful corporations.

True, the Bill of Rights doesnt bind private corporations the way it binds the government. But our society will be stronger and our liberty more secure if corporations willingly and eagerly embrace the spirit of our First Amendment freedoms. In an age increasingly dominated by technological titans, the gravest threats to freedom might well stem from private rather than public actors. Perhaps that is already the case. In any event, citizens should be vigilant and legislators active. In a time when one hears much talk of the imperatives of corporate morality, perhaps the most urgent imperative of all is for corporations and citizens alike to re-embrace the spirit of the First Amendment.

The Bill of Rights is now 230 years old. Although its promises have sometimes been flouted or applied selectively, it has served us, on the whole, exceedingly well. But it faces novel challenges and unprecedented strains. In the face of those challenges, it is past time for us to renew our acquaintance with, and our commitment to, these precious guarantees. May all Americans, once more and forever, steer by the fixed star of our first and foremost freedoms.

Justin Collings is a professor at Brigham Young University Law School and a fellow at the Wheatley Institution.

See the article here:

The Bill of Rights guarantees unprecedented freedom. Is it waning? | Opinion - Deseret News

QUAKERTOWN, Pa. - More than 100 people filed into Quakertown's Univest Performance Center Sunday afternoon to learn about The Convention of States, a movement looking to use the U.S. Constitution to give states more rights.

"It's great to know there's some like mindedness and people are concerned how things are going and we would like to use the Constitution to save the Constitution," said Brenda Hendricks, who helped organize Sunday's event.

Co-organizer Linda Hendricks tells us the group is looking use Article V of the Constitution to call for a Convention to propose amendments.

"So that we as the people can take back powers that have been taken from the states and given to the federal government," said Linda Hendricks.

It is something she said is a bipartisan effort they would like to educate more people about.

"I believe a lot of people are unaware of the alternative that Convention States offers us," said Brenda Hendricks.

According to organizers, 34 states would be needed for a convention to propose amendments. They said there is currently 15 states and now they are looking to add the Keystone State.

"Then once amendments are proposed and debated, we've got to go back to the states and get 38 states to agree to pass those amendments to become part of the Constitution," said Linda Hendricks.

Excerpt from:

Attendees of "Let Freedom Ring" event call for states to have more rights - 69News WFMZ-TV

FULL STORY: Crawford carries Freedom to success in 4-TD night

Freedom 38, Nazareth 21 Rapid Recap

The Freedom High School football teams defense set up its offense for success on Friday night.

The No. 6 Patriots forced five turnovers and scored 24 straight second-half points to defeat No. 3 Nazareth 38-21 in an Eastern Pennsylvania Conference South Division contest at Andrew S. Leh Stadium.

Turning point: With the score tied 14-14, Freedom faced fourth-and-1 at its own 23-yard line on the opening possession of the second half. The Patriots went for it and succeeded, thanks to an 8-yard run by Deante Crawford.

That conversion highlighted a 14-play, 86-yard drive. Crawford ended the series with a 3-yard TD run and Zeyad Ragabs PAT made the score 21-14 with 6:31 remaining in the third quarter.

Nazareths next two possessions ended in turnovers (an interception and a fumble), which the Patriots transformed into 10 points. Crawfords 13-yard scoring sprint gave the visitors a 31-14 advantage with 10:15 remaining in the contest.

Top performers: To call Crawford a workhorse on Friday night would be a gross understatement. The senior carried the ball 46 times for 201 yards and four touchdowns.

Patriots quarterback Brian Taylor completed 7 of 10 passes for 190 yards and a touchdown. Ethan Neidig caught a 28-yard touchdown and snared an interception.

Tyler Rohn paced the Nazareth offense with 109 yards and a pair of TDs on 25 carries.

What it means: Nazareth, which fell to 3-2 overall and 1-2 in the division, lost its first game at home since Sept. 28, 2018. The Blue Eagles travel to Liberty on Oct. 2.

Freedom improved to 3-2, 2-2. The Patriots host Allentown Central Catholic on Oct 1.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to lehighvalleylive.com.

Kyle Craig may be reached at kcraig@lehighvalleylive.com.

Read the original:

Freedom football turns up turnovers, owns 2nd half in win over Nazareth - lehighvalleylive.com

Blocked Internet concept

The internet is getting less free every year, according to a new report, with state interference leading to an 11-year decline.

According to Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2021, of the 70 nations evaluated, 48 pursued legal or administrative action against technology companies.

While, as the report points out, many of these measures worked to rein in abuses, others limited free expression, privacy and public accountability.

"The rights of internet users around the world, especially the rights to free expression and privacy, are being massively violated as a result of recent state actions," says Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House.

"Instead of using regulation to curb the immense power of tech companies, many governments are wielding it for their own repressive purposes."

China topped the list for the seventh year in a row, imposing heavy prison sentences for online dissent, independent reporting and private communications, with particular censorship around the topic of Covid-19.

The US also fared badly, showing its fifth year of decline. False, misleading, and manipulated information continued to proliferate online, says Freedom House, even affecting public acceptance of the 2020 presidential election results.

However, there are words of praise for the Biden administration which, says the report, has taken promising steps to enforce stronger protections for internet users.

Elsewhere, more governments arrested users for nonviolent political, social or religious speech than ever before. Meanwhile, internet access was suspended in at least 20 countries, and 21 blocked access to social media platforms. And authorities in at least 45 countries are suspected of obtaining sophisticated spyware or data-extraction technology from private vendors.

In Myamnar, internet freedom dropped by 14 points over the year the biggest ever decline recorded after the military refused to accept the results of the November 2020 general elections and launched a coup earlier this year.

There were also major internet freedom declines in Belarus, following the August 2020 election victory of Alyaksandr Lukashenka, and in Uganda, where the internet eas shut down and social media platforms blocked during general elections in January 2021.

"Governments everywhere are invoking a vague need to retake control of the internet whether from foreign powers, multinational corporations, or even civil society," says Adrian Shahbaz, Freedom House's director for technology and democracy.

"In the absence of a shared vision for a free and open internet, many states are imposing restrictions on the free flow of information across borders, denying people access to life-changing tools based solely on their location. This fragmentation is diminishing the emancipatory power of the internet."

See more here:

Freedom On The Net Falls For 11th Consecutive Year - Forbes