Stick to the words of the Constitution
I was quite amused today to hear that Ward Churchill and his lawyer, David Lane, are filing paperwork in court to sue the University of Colorado for violating his First Amendment rights (“Churchill fired; next shot in court,” July 25).
I should point out that the only people that can be sued in this case are those in the U.S. Congress.
Concerning free speech, the Constitution only limits the actions of Congress. Congress cannot write a law making certain speech illegal. People cannot be arrested solely because of things they say.
However, people can lose their jobs because of the things they say if their statements are not in the best interests of the employer, as in the case of the CU and Churchill.
I challenge anyone to explain how language in the First Amendment relating to the actions of the Congress in any way can be applied in this case.
There is no connection if you stick to the words.
If you start thinking as a utopian or base your argument on what you think is fair, you can go anywhere with the First Amendment.
But if you stick to the words, Congress is the only one that cannot limit free speech.
Steve Hellmann, Aurora
This congress is illegal because numerous members, on both sides of the aisle, are known "felons". In 1977, President Carter pardoned (amnesty) all Vietnam War draft dodgers (felons), who violated the "rule of law and spirit and intent", of our US Selective Service Board laws. He didn't give "W" and Alito this mulligan because they ARE UCMJ felons (AWOLees, deserters, and recipeints of illegal separation and discharge).
While Carter was doling out these "gifts", he was simultaneously commissioning me as a naval officer (served in 3 deployments to Vietnam). In violation of state and federal election laws, not a SINGLE politician (draft-evaders) has ever answered the question on these documents truthfully; "have you ever committed or ever been convicted of a felony offense?"
All congressional members at a minimum, must hold (qualify) a "top-secret" level military and national security clearance. The DoD, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), FBI, etc., are accountable and responsible for administering and validating, ALL applicants and applications for security clearances. Politicians themselves must sign their own security clearance applications (sworn statement, holding penalty of perjury).
I would like to know if Cheney, Rove, Boehner, Lott, McConnell, Reid, Allard, Tancredo, BoPeep, Owens, Romney, etc., ever perjured their election documents or security clearance applications.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on July 30, 2007 07:04 AMJust giving some ''luv" for another NAM vet. I was born and raised behind "The Cotton Curtain", in SC/NC, respectively. CENSORSHIP: While a teenager during the 1960's, white southern radio station owners, were the "deciders", of what music would be broadcasted over the radio waves. They "decided", I shouldn't listen to the R&B group, "Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions". Mayfield recorded R&B hits that were tiltled, "We're a Winner", Keep on Pushing", "My Country", etc. These bigots refused to play them on their radio stations, because they "decided", the militant lyrics, would "stir-up", their otherwise "good-Negroes".
Churchill is simply being censored, solely due to the skin he's in. Owens (draft-dodger) is the kingpin, leading the charge to violate Churchill's "free speech" rights. Hopefully, as a favor to all NAM vets, Churchill is suing Owens as a named defendant. No one had the backbone to suppress Owens, St. Elway, Mastermind (draft-dodger), BoPeep, Allard, Musgrave, Tancredo, etc.'s "fee speech", when these bozos were cheering Bush on in his illegal and barbaric Iraq-NAM War. Their "free speech" supported war crimes and gave us the gift of 3600 dead saints (targets and sititng ducks).
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on July 30, 2007 07:26 AM40 acres you really really need to get a life.
why dont you go after the dems for Nam remember it was johnson who speed it up for the prospect of oil.
go start your own radio station and play what ever you want, but be sure not to leave anyone out so you are not called a bigot for doing so. just remember that you are in control of how you want some one to run their business, but that is only in your mind as they can do what they want and if you dont like it dont listen to that radio station or shop at a store that doesnt meet your standards.
Encouraging to see that some RMN readers actually read the constitution. Steve is spot on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and it only applies to congress. It does not apply to employers such as CU. See for yourself--read it.
As most K-12ers already know, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Freedom of speech is not absolute. In this case, Ward Churchill would be the usher who was employed by the theatre who was running around screaming "fire." Churchill doesn't have a constitutional leg upon which to stand. This embarrassment to CU and the people of Colorado is about to end. Let's make sure we get campus PC and affirmative action under control and make sure that this abuse never happens again.
Posted by hank on July 30, 2007 09:07 AMWell, now.
Another exponent of the notion that the Costitution got carved in stone, back in 1789; and that instead of being constructed for the purpose of - among other things, as its Preamble tells us, "form(ing) a more perfect Union . . . (and) promot(ing) the general Welfare" - it has no application to the States that ratified it, or to future States as they were admitted to the Union.
Old Johnny One Note and the "States Rights Libertarian Revolutionism" - or whatever it might be called - claque sounds again. Off key, and flat(ulent), as usual.
Now, if THIS is what is being taught in our colleges and universities, we ARE in trouble!
Posted by Old Grouch on July 30, 2007 09:18 AM7:38 youreallyneedtogetadictionaryandlearntousepunctuationandcapitallettersandmaybejustmaybepeoplewillunderstandyouandnotdismisswhatyouretryingtosay
Or, you could sue your english teacher from elementary school.
I'm sure they're very wealthy.
hank,
You're wrong.
Where in our Constitution does it say freedom of speech is only applicable to Congress?
DMZ,
In the first amendment.
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech..."
But in regard to Mr. Churchill's claim, one only needs to refer to Bigelow v. Virginia, and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire for precedent in this matter.
Posted by Dan2 on July 30, 2007 10:52 AMYou're wrong.
Where in our Constitution does it say freedom of speech is only applicable to Congress?
Oh, yeah? here is the complete 1st Amendment, word for word, total and complete:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of greviances."
C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S shall make no law...C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S...!!! Not one's employer, but C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S.
The very first word of the very first amendment says it all. How could you possibly miss it? Even children understand the concept of yelling fire in a crowded theatre and that freedom of speech is not absolute. Grammar school children, not members of the supreme court, but average, everyday school children get it. And you dont?
Good grief, is that what's being taught in our schools these days. No wonder why the drop-out rate is 50%. Those who stay are simply wasting their time.
You're wrong.
Where in our Constitution does it say freedom of speech is only applicable to Congress?
Oh, yeah? Here is the complete 1st Amendment, word for word, total and complete:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of greviances."
C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S shall make no law...C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S...!!! Not one's employer, but C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S.
The very first word of the very first amendment says it all. How could you possibly miss it? Even children understand the concept of yelling fire in a crowded theatre and that freedom of speech is not absolute. Grammar school children, not members of the supreme court, but average, everyday school children get it. And you dont?
Good grief, is that what's being taught in our schools these days. No wonder why the drop-out rate is 50%. Those who stay are simply wasting their time.
Hank,
I didn't see "separation of church and state" It only states "respecting an establishment of religion" and "prohibiting the free excersise thereof"
Did I miss something?
Posted by on July 30, 2007 11:51 AMSeparation of Church and State, America's Siamese twins, is implicit in the Constitution whereas you can go to the Founders; you can go to Thomas Jefferson in which the words are explicit in his state Virginia Constitution. America's Constitution is kept short except to correct its flaws with Amendments. Thus, it is a living document that evolves dependent on social norms. Hate to use the 'F' word, but: Evolution is a fact.
Deicide Corner: Twins. I see State and Church as twins that must be kept apart; I see Jehovah and Allah as evil twins; I see Cain and Abel sort of like twins and if they had been kept apart there'd be no murder.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org Web: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html c on July 30, 2007 12:20 PMOld Grouch,
"form(ing) a more perfect Union . . . (and) promot(ing) the general Welfare"
Truly a classic example of how the Constitution has been prostituted for the purpose of changing it's original intent to support a radical agenda.
.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I read it over many times and can't seem to find all of the (ings) that you seem to believe exist. I was on the understanding they formed a more perfect union.
. Richard Grimes
Are you saying it can be changed simply based on social needs? So if we need religion we can simply change the Constitution ? Or if we feel a free press does not meet a social need we can just change it?
A living document, that can be changed by SOCIAL NEEDS is as worthless as any other piece of paper. I have one more question, who determines SOCIAL NEEDS?
Posted by on July 30, 2007 12:34 PMThe Constitution was written with specific provisions for amending it. Historically, the Congress, with the assistance of interpretations by courts, have amended the Constitution on many occassions to bring it "up to date". One needs to understand that, generally, only white, male property owners were originally allowed to vote.
Let Churchill have his day in court, and if the Congress disagrees, they can craft a law which better defines whose rights are protected by the First Amendmend and for what reasons.
As for "separation of church and state", allow me to quote the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
Posted by Stan B on July 30, 2007 12:34 PMStan B,
Let me quote the author (Sen Howard) and the person who introduced the 14th amendment to Congress in 1866
Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI)
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other"
President Lincoln's Attorney General, Edward Bates, wrote a opinion dated November 29, 1862 that stated:
"The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, it is, in fact, made by them."
The principle behind birthright is the same as it was before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment: Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth
As for "separation of church and state" .
If you look at your history, the problem in England came from the Church dictating to the government, not the government dictating to the Church. Totally different from what is happening in the US today.
Posted by jgd777j on July 30, 2007 12:54 PMThe Constitution has been changed hundreds of times by the Supremes whereas two thirds of the states can vote to change it.
W. Bush is correct: The Constitution is just "a goddamn piece of paper," though I would call it a sacred piece of paper agreeing with Justice Black that it is his Bible; however, that piece of paper cannot be changed by him, killer Bush, but damned him, he is changing it which is why the presidency has to be neutered.
Deicide Corner: "We want you to make good choices, Robby" says dad to his baby, "even if, one day, they're overturned by the Supreme Court."
The 14th Amendment says "jurisdiction" and without it there can be no anchor baby born to illegal immigrants; however, the Supremes use the "f" word on the 14th.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org )Web http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html on July 30, 2007 01:13 PMI saw this letter in the print version and just had to see what the "thugs" would do with it. No surprises. Steve, you are like a voice of reason and logic in the Liberal PC wilderness. That's why you'll get shouted down with illogical and irrelevant drivel, e.g. Old Grouch. They are psuedo intellectuals who can't engage in organized debate. Liberal's think they can say anything without challenges or consequences. You are absolutely right about the Constitution. A citizen can stand on the street corner and spout all the political venom he wants, just like the old days at UC Berkeley. But, an employer, even the Federal Government (in theory), can fire an employee for not supporting the policies and/or following the prescribed procedures of the institution. The Constitution only protects us from the Congress passing laws that woud inhibit our right to free speech. (Well, I guess Campaign Finance Reform may have been and exception?) The Churchill case reminds me of Al Capone's prosecution. The authorities thought it would be easier to get him on tax evasion instead of murder and racketeering, etc. But, that didn't mean he wasn't guilty of murder. Churchill SHOULD have been fired because of his public remarks because they reflected upon his employer. But, he couldn't have been prosecuted for what he said. Do you Liberal types not see the difference?
Posted by Dinty on July 30, 2007 01:15 PMNo one should think that changing the Constitution is as easy as adhereing to "social needs". The Bill of Rights was written and amended to protect the rights of individuals (except in the case of prohibition, which was correctly voided, that denied individual rights) and is not easily or lightly reformed. Mister Churchhill's right to speak his mind, however, may not, necessarily, give him the right to claim others people's prolonged statements as his own. That would be called plagiarism, for which he was, allegedly, dismissed.
Posted by Stan B on July 30, 2007 01:42 PMjdg777,
When quoting, and desiring to give emphasis to a particular phrase, or part of a sentence, to make the quote remain grammatical, where necessary in sentence construction, proper prepositional, or other, endings may be used in parenthesis. The parenthesis denotes the necessary modification of the phrase for grammatical purposes only.
Which you should have learned somewhere around 8th grade Enlish composition.
However . . . .
Posted by on July 30, 2007 02:08 PM2;08
And you might want to look up correct comma usage.
Posted by jgd777 on July 30, 2007 02:41 PMGuess what the chances are that Steve and the butt-kissing idiots behind him like Dinty and Hank will come back and admit their error when this suit proceeds. I'm not saying he'll win, but he damn well has grounds for a suit, the opinions of Limbaugh-certified Lawyers aside.
Posted by on July 30, 2007 04:31 PMNow, now. "butt-kissing idiots"? "admit their error"? On what basis do you make those outrageous statements? Can you not respond to or rebut specific points in a civil manner? That's exactly what I was talking about. You people just go off on an emotional rant without any substance. Steve's point is not erroneous. Anybody can read the excerpt from the Constitution and see he's right. But, that may not matter in the Liberal courts we have today. I think Churchill may very well get some kind of settlement. Isn't that what it's really all about? I don't think his lawyer, David Lane, is stupid. He knows there is technically no "freedom of speech" issue. He's just working the system in the press and hoping to get people like you on the jury, if it ever gets that far.
Posted by Dinty on July 30, 2007 05:09 PMDinty said hilariously:
"...the Liberal courts we have today."
How out of touch do you have to be to believe this?
Pretty far out.
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 07:00 PMCharles B
"...the Liberal courts we have today."
How out of touch do you have to be to NOT believe this?
Posted by on July 30, 2007 07:24 PM:
Then let's start at the top with the Supreme Court. Explain for my edification how it is "Liberal".
Posted by Charles B on July 30, 2007 09:56 PMLuckily we now have a few more non-liberals on the supreme court. but we still have to deal with the 9th district, and how about the radical judges giving sex offenders probation or just letting them walk. It is due time that criminals are taken off the street and stop the repeat offenders from commiting more crimes.
And we won't even talk about some of the screwy rulings come out of the Peoples Republic of California.
Posted by on July 30, 2007 10:45 PMPosted by on July 30, 2007 10:45 PM backtracked:
"Luckily we now have a few more non-liberals on the supreme court."
A "few more" means a solid majority.
Then he mentioned the 9th circuit and California. Somehow these few examples got translated in his brain to "...the liberal courts we have today".
Yeah, like the two...
Well Dinty,
You call what is said by others an emotional rant. Yet you state what you think is applicable thought both for, and on the part of, Churchill's lawyer.
Having taught Civics, and had classes in Constitutional Law, I will state that your remarks concerning your idea of supposed "limitations" of, and to, the First Amendment are ignorant nonsense and nothing more than silly blather.
All State and Commonwealth Constitutions, as well as all Charters of local Civil government and agencies of Civil government, as well as State Statutes and Ordinances, MUST CONFORM to the Constitution of the United States, including the First Amendment - and all other Amendments thereto. And any actions taken to deprive anyone of "freedom of speech" , or to deprive one of life, liberty, or property - including a job - because of contention over a matter of "free speech, or expression" are always fully open to contest in Court.
Your claims that the Constitution and its Amendments are limited to Congress alone are so ridiculous as not to be worth the space wasted on airing them.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 31, 2007 02:57 PM