Gov. & Law
Follow
Find
35 views | +0 today
Rescooped by dsnow37 from Constitutional Amendments
onto Gov. & Law
Scoop.it!

Lawsuit over students' memorial T-shirts can proceed | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

Lawsuit over students' memorial T-shirts can proceed | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it

Analysis: What the narrative was trying to elucidate was that 3 siblings from Omaha, Nebraska, were honoring a friend, Julius Robinson, who passed away. Dan, Nick, and Cassie Kuhr were practicing thier amendment rights, by creating t-shirts, wristbands, and key chains. This was so that they could honor Julius and give the opportunity to give money to his family. Nevertheless, their rights were being threatened, since that Millard South High School (school that the Kuhrs went to) told them they were prohibited from wearing the shirts (because of gang alliances, response: refused, suspended for 2 days, lead up to a protest of 30 students). However, the district court judge, Laurie Smith Camp, denied to dismiss the case. Plus, she said that even though the school may have overreacted, it still cannot hesitate as far as the safety of the students is concerned. In the process, Brian Jorde, Kuhr's lawyer, asked questions, such as comparing being suspended or practicing your 1st amendment rights interrupting education more. In my opinion, I would have to coincide with the article. I believe this, because all the Kuhrs were striving to do was to honor someone who was killed in a gun incident. They were never trying to harm the school in any way. My final thought: Although the school was attempting to protect its students from gang confederacies, it may have ended up getting carried away. Because of standing up to the school and the court for what the Kuhrs believed was right, I credit their actions as constitutional.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nebraska siblings who honored a slain friend can have their day in court, as federal judge won't dismiss their case against school that barred the clothing.


Via Casey Tumblety
dsnow37's insight:

This article talks about how students made t-shirts, wristbands, and etc. for a fellow student who had passed away.  And the Nebraska police said they weren't aloud to wear them because they thought it had to relate with some gang because "R.I.P." t-shirts were being worn to honor slain members of a gang.  The judge never rested the case because he/she believed the student was part of a gang.  "Loc'ed Out Criminals" originally said he had no part in any gang. 

 

more...
MsHaeussinger's curator insight, February 14, 2013 8:21 AM

What a timely story!

Zachary Brekke's comment, February 15, 2013 12:33 PM
In a way both parties were right. Yet I do fell that both parties overacted. However I do not understand how the safety of students can be compromised from a few t-shirts. Even him the guy was in a gang or not, show some respect.
Abby Bisgard's comment, February 17, 2013 10:03 PM
I do think both sides were right. Although, I think that without hard evidence, they should not take the rights of the students away. They are not causing any harm by wearing t-shirts in rememberence of a student.
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by dsnow37 from The Middle Ground
Scoop.it!

Presidents' Day: It's All About Respect

Presidents' Day: It's All About Respect | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it

I know this may surprise many of you, but Presidents’ Day isn’t really about getting the best deal on a new Ford or checking out the white sale at JCPenny.

 

It’s about acknowledging the hard work that it takes to be President, and it’s about respecting those who have taken on this enormous challenge. Sadly, few seem to see it that way anymore…. MORE

 


Via Michael Charney
dsnow37's insight:

This article is saying that more people respect the sales from retail storres rather than respecting our past presidents for everything they have done, good or bad.

more...
Nick Iversen's comment, March 17, 2013 12:19 PM
I do not think most people think about the past presidents and all they have done on presidents day
Rescooped by dsnow37 from The Peoples News
Scoop.it!

TIME Challenges Legitimacy of America's Judicial Branch

TIME Challenges Legitimacy of America's Judicial Branch | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
November 1, 2011. Washington. Yesterday, TIME Magazine released an article on their website that didn’t just take a quick shot at the widespread corruption throughout every level of government.

Via Lon Hope
dsnow37's insight:

This article is about how TIME published an article about the Judicial Branch, called, "Judges are for Sale - And Special Interests are Buying."  It basically describes how wealthy businesses are pouring out money to the Judicial Branch. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from United States Congress
Scoop.it!

Leader Cantor Statement on STOCK Act

Leader Cantor Statement on STOCK Act | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
WASHINGTON, D.C.– House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) tonight issued the following statement regarding the Senate procedural vote on the STOCK Act:“Insider trading by members of Congress is unacceptable, (RT @GOPLeader: Insider trading by members...

Via Ben Hildebrand
dsnow37's insight:

This article is based on what Eric Cantor thinks about the Stock Act.  He believes that the Stock Act is to ensure members that Congress does not use insider information to personally profit from.  Is it being mis-used?

more...
MsHaeussinger's comment, March 6, 2013 5:23 AM
Good story! While it is rather challenging to prove, it is well known that members of Congress do have certain privileges in the world that are not often publicized. I would not be surprised to find out that a small number of Congressmen and women have taken advantage of insider trading over the years.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from United States Congress
Scoop.it!

Senate Will Vote on Conscience Clause on Thursday

Senate Will Vote on Conscience Clause on Thursday | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
The Senate will vote Thursday on a conscience clause amendment to release religious organizations from government mandates in health care, Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said today.

Via Ben Hildebrand
dsnow37's insight:

This article is about how a conscience clause amendment is trying to be passed on releasing religious organizations from government mandates in HealthCare.  It will also be a 60 vote threshold.

 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from Powerful Amendments
Scoop.it!

Prison Planet.com » Senate Rejects Amendment to 'Indefinite ...

Prison Planet.com » Senate Rejects Amendment to 'Indefinite ... | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
The Senate has overwhelmingly voted down an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have provided oversight to check the military's power to arrest U.S. citizens as suspected terrorists on American ...

Via Matt Oden
dsnow37's insight:

This article talks about the Senate denying an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.  This act would provide the military the power to arrest any suspected U.S. Citizen of being a terrorisonion America.

more...
Nick Iversen's comment, February 17, 2013 1:04 PM
Giving the military the power to arrest people because they think they might be terrorists, and hold them indefinitely without trial, would be ridiculous. This is a larger version of what went on in NYC with the cops randomly searching people
Scooped by dsnow37
Scoop.it!

Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty

Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997...
dsnow37's insight:

This article is about a retired Army General who thinks Obama is leading the U.S. down the wrong path.  The general is pointing out that many things can go wrong if President Obama signs the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

more...
Sammy Coble's curator insight, February 6, 2013 7:02 PM

This articles talking about the good and bad of the ATT. sr people say that it's good and will prevent violence and danger from happening. Others say that it's taking away people rights and protection. I personally think that guns shouldn't be banned people are going to find a way to cause harm one way or another.

Tanner Mathews's comment, February 10, 2013 7:13 AM
I agree with you totally Sammy. its part of the constitution that we have the right to bare arms and they will never be able to do it.
Abby Bisgard's comment, February 10, 2013 6:45 PM
Although I see where it is not right to ban guns, I do believe we need to control. I think Obama is taking a great initiative. Obviously our country has faced terrible events, and we need to find a way to fix it. There should be some restrictions on guns, but not a lot of restriction.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from U.S. Constitution
Scoop.it!

'Negative' Constitution still a positive force - Philadelphia Inquirer

'Negative' Constitution still a positive force - Philadelphia Inquirer | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
'Negative' Constitution still a positive forcePhiladelphia Inquirer(AP Photo/US Embassy Egypt) A century ago, progressives viewed the US Constitution as fundamentally flawed and a relic of outdated mores.

Via CSSCC
dsnow37's insight:

This article says people looked at the Constitution of being outdated and not right.  Barrack Obama observed the Constitution as "charter of negative liberties", which is saying what the government can't do to you rather than whit can do to you.  One of Obama's supreme court justices thinks the Constitution is out of date and should be written to modern day format.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from Littlebytesnews Current Events
Scoop.it!

HR 371 Introduced:Presidents may get pink slips for spending deficits&failure to balance budget...should start with Obama!

HR 371 Introduced:Presidents may get pink slips for spending deficits&failure to balance budget...should start with Obama! | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
Just days after the House-based “no budget, no pay” bill passed, Rep. Mo Brooks, Alabama Republican, has proposed a bill that would make the failure of future presidents to enforce a balanced budget an impeachable offense.

Rep. Mo Brooks, Alabama Republican, has proposed a bill that would make the failure of future presidents to enforce a balanced budget an impeachable offense.

The Hill reports that Protecting America’s Solvency Act, H.R. 371, would put stringent caps on Congress, forcing it not to spend more revenue than is collected. Provisions in the law could be amended with a four-fifths majority vote.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/26/brooks-bill-would-make-deficits-impeachable-offens/#ixzz2KwsITnC5 ;
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 


Via littlebytesnews
dsnow37's insight:

This article is about how presidents can get the pink slip if they spend to much money.  The bill is called, "no budget, no pay."

more...
littlebytesnews's curator insight, February 14, 2013 11:00 PM

Why not have it apply to the current President?? He's the worst and first one to fail to balance the budget that I can recall.

Rescooped by dsnow37 from Surfing the Broadband Bit Stream
Scoop.it!

FCC to Investigate Cellphone Unlocking | Forbes

FCC to Investigate Cellphone Unlocking | Forbes | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it

After publishing my Boing Boing piece, Cellphone Unlocking is the First Step Towards Post-SOPA Copyright Reform, the question was whether there could be real movement on the cellphone unlocking issue in wake of our White House petition reaching 100,000 – well late last night we heard news from Gregory Ferenstein with Techcrunch that the FCCis going to be investigating this matter.

 

"Following an online uproar over a law banning the unlocking of cell phones, the Federal Communications Commission will investigate whether the ban is harmful to economic competitiveness and if the executive branch has any authority to change the law. . . Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has, but if he finds any, given the tone of the conversation, it’s likely he will exert his influence to reverse the decision. “It’s something that we will look at at the FCC to see if we can and should enable consumers to use unlocked phones.”

 

It is a terrific development that the FCC is apparently investigating this matter. They should be investigating this – the decision is indefensible. It’s becoming increasingly clear what happened here and the impact of this upon innovation, small businesses and the consumer. But ultimately Congress must act.

 

On January 26, 2013, the Librarian of Congress issued a ruling that made it illegal to unlock new phones. Unlocking is a technique that allows your phone to use a different carrier. This is a common technique for international travelers, our soldiers deploying abroad and for people who want to use their phones once they are out of contract.  Doing so could place you in legal liability for up to 5 years in jail and a $500,000 fine.

 

This creates new barriers to entry for new market participants on behalf of the two dominant wireless providers. In fact, the association representing over 100 wireless carriers has come out strongly against the ruling and in favor of unlocking (Competitive Carriers Association). Among their members are rural carriers but also Sprint and T-Mobile.  The fact that over 100 wireless carriers are against the ruling and two are in favor is further evidence that this is a clear case of crony capitalism.

 

Click headline to read more--


Via Chuck Sherwood, Senior Associate, TeleDimensions, Inc
dsnow37's insight:

This article is about how the White House came up with over 111,000 signatures on a petition to unlock all cell phones.  And many people are against that especially when you can spend up to 5 years in jail or have a $500,000 fine.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from United States Congress
Scoop.it!

Obama Will Meet With Congressional Leaders on Jobs, Economy

Obama Will Meet With Congressional Leaders on Jobs, Economy | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
President Barack Obama will meet with Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate to discuss the potential for bipartisan agreement on legislation aimed at creating jobs and boosting the economy, the White House announced this evening.

Via Ben Hildebrand
dsnow37's insight:

This article is talking about President Barrack Obama meeting with Democratic and Republican Leaders, discussing an agreement to add more jobs and to increase our economy.

 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from Constitutional Amendments
Scoop.it!

Lawsuit over students' memorial T-shirts can proceed | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

Lawsuit over students' memorial T-shirts can proceed | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it

Analysis: What the narrative was trying to elucidate was that 3 siblings from Omaha, Nebraska, were honoring a friend, Julius Robinson, who passed away. Dan, Nick, and Cassie Kuhr were practicing thier amendment rights, by creating t-shirts, wristbands, and key chains. This was so that they could honor Julius and give the opportunity to give money to his family. Nevertheless, their rights were being threatened, since that Millard South High School (school that the Kuhrs went to) told them they were prohibited from wearing the shirts (because of gang alliances, response: refused, suspended for 2 days, lead up to a protest of 30 students). However, the district court judge, Laurie Smith Camp, denied to dismiss the case. Plus, she said that even though the school may have overreacted, it still cannot hesitate as far as the safety of the students is concerned. In the process, Brian Jorde, Kuhr's lawyer, asked questions, such as comparing being suspended or practicing your 1st amendment rights interrupting education more. In my opinion, I would have to coincide with the article. I believe this, because all the Kuhrs were striving to do was to honor someone who was killed in a gun incident. They were never trying to harm the school in any way. My final thought: Although the school was attempting to protect its students from gang confederacies, it may have ended up getting carried away. Because of standing up to the school and the court for what the Kuhrs believed was right, I credit their actions as constitutional.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nebraska siblings who honored a slain friend can have their day in court, as federal judge won't dismiss their case against school that barred the clothing.


Via Casey Tumblety
dsnow37's insight:

This article talks about how students made t-shirts, wristbands, and etc. for a fellow student who had passed away.  And the Nebraska police said they weren't aloud to wear them because they thought it had to relate with some gang because "R.I.P." t-shirts were being worn to honor slain members of a gang.  The judge never rested the case because he/she believed the student was part of a gang.  "Loc'ed Out Criminals" originally said he had no part in any gang. 

 

more...
MsHaeussinger's curator insight, February 14, 2013 8:21 AM

What a timely story!

Zachary Brekke's comment, February 15, 2013 12:33 PM
In a way both parties were right. Yet I do fell that both parties overacted. However I do not understand how the safety of students can be compromised from a few t-shirts. Even him the guy was in a gang or not, show some respect.
Abby Bisgard's comment, February 17, 2013 10:03 PM
I do think both sides were right. Although, I think that without hard evidence, they should not take the rights of the students away. They are not causing any harm by wearing t-shirts in rememberence of a student.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from Powerful Amendments
Scoop.it!

The First Amendment upside-down: Why we must Occupy

The First Amendment upside-down: Why we must Occupy | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it

You've been seeing this across the country … Americans assaulted, clubbed, dragged, pepper-sprayed … Why? For exercising their right to free speech and assembly — protesting the increasing concentration of income,


Via Matt Oden
dsnow37's insight:

This article is saying people who are getting the use of Freedom of Speech are being assaulted by officers and how the Congress just turns their heads on the whole thing.  It's all starting because "Congress' "super committee" have disbanded because the Republicans don't want to raise taxes by a penny for the rich."

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by dsnow37 from us constitution
Scoop.it!

FDA is blocked from requiring graphic warnings on cigarette labels (1st amenment)

FDA is blocked from requiring graphic warnings on cigarette labels (1st amenment) | Gov. & Law | Scoop.it
A federal judge has blocked the government from requiring tobacco companies to begin placing images of diseased lungs and cadavers on cigarette packages, saying the health warnings violated the firms' 1st Amendment rights.

Via joe mangione
dsnow37's insight:

This article talks about how the FDA has violated their 1st Amendment Rights for putting pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packages.  

more...
Nick Iversen's comment, February 10, 2013 11:39 AM
I think that the images they were talking about using, including the one with the guy with the hole in this throat, is a bit over the top