Trifecta for tyranny, Part Deux

We posted what follows on November 11, 2010.  In light of recent events, perhaps it is time to repeat it.  Guns…Fast and Furious, wealth…the rich aren’t paying their fair share, religion… Read more

Flag burning LSU student: Felony theft, arson protected by First Amendment

I do not condone burning the United States flag. I think it’s best to ignore those who make a spectacle of themselves doing such a thing while basking in their First Amendment glory. That said, LSU graduate student Benjamin Haas is a lunatic. He plans to burn the flag in support of a (most likely) drug-induced criminal spree that happened to include burning the US flag.

Read more

It is your money after all

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn.  The case hinges upon the issue of “standing”, which is a lawyer’s way of saying, do the people who have filed this law suit have the legal right to do so.  But, the answer to that question is not the reason for this post. Read more

Trifecta for tyranny

We posted what follows on November 11, 2010.  In light of recent events, perhaps it is time to repeat it.  Guns…Fast and Furious, wealth…the rich aren’t paying their fair share, religion… Read more

Christine O’Donnell getting slammed my MSM on 1st Amendment

Interestingly enough it’s Coons who could not answer the Constitutional question. But that was put to him by O’Donnell. Still it’s O’Donnell who is being whacked and ridiculed when her challenge to Coons is clearly rhetorical. Audio below. You decide for yourself. Read more

Senator Jack Reed on Ground Zero Mosque: For the first amendment before he’s agin’ it.

Democrats are having a real tough time finding their bearings on the Ground Zero Mosque and I think it’s because they know how weak their stand for the mosque is. Not weak constitutionally (although in this case the Constitution disappears) … weak morally, and when your world revolves around moral relativism, your argument ends up with plenty of holes. Like this one. Read more

What will Grayson do next?

By now you are probably familiar with Representative Alan Grayson (D. Fl.).   He is the person who, among other oddities, and, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary, continues to proclaim that 45,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance.  And the same fellow that filed a complaint with the Attorney General demanding fines and jail time for a central Florida woman who started a web site entitled “my congressman is nuts“.  Grayson’s web site is “congressman with guts.”

It seems that now, he has taken it upon himself to introduce not one, not two, but six different bills in the House seeking to overturn last Thursday’s  decision by the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  That was the case that held that a federal law prohibiting corporations from using general treasury funds for campaign contributions was an unconstitutional denial of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.  According to Grayson, that decision is,

a direct threat to our democracy.

Funny, in all my years as an attorney, I’ve never heard another attorney refer to freedom of speech as a threat to democracy.  Personally, I always thought that the absence of free speech was the threat.

Grayson has given the catchy title “Businesses Should Mind Their own Business Act” to one of the six.

That bill would impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees or any expenditures on political-advocacy campaigns. [emphasis supplied]

Of course, unions would be exempt.

Another bill would prohibit companies that make political contributions from trading on the New York Stock Exchange, and a third would prohibit corporations that receive federal money from donating to any political cause.  The other three are even more bizarre.

I know Grayson’s bio says he is a law school graduate, but I’m wondering if maybe he was out sick when the First Amendment was discussed.  Or, when it was explained that Congress can’t overrule a Supreme Court decision that was based upon the Constitution, only an amendment to the Constitution can do that.