The Librarians Who Battled the Patriot Act – David Goodman

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/04/14/Amy_and_David_Goodman_Standing_Up_to_the_Madness

Mother Jones journalist David Goodman tells the story of four Connecticut librarians who were ordered by the FBI to release library records under the Patriot Act. After filing suit against the Attorney General to challenge the order, the librarians eventually won the case.

—–

The longtime host of the award-winning Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman has steadfastly covered grassroots activism, the political process, and government accountability. She has co-authored many books with her brother and fellow journalist, David Goodman.

Their collaborations include investigations into the mercenary aspects of war, media culpability, freedom of information, and international human rights, and seek not only to expose endemic corruption, but also to affect change.

Their bestselling book, The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them, examines the full political spectrum, from The Washington Post to Bill Clinton, in an effort to bring genuine accountability into public discourse. The Goodmans’ latest project is Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times. Standing Up to the Madness celebrates grassroots activists across America and the power of the individual to bring change on a local and national level. – City Arts and Lectures

David Goodman is a contributing writer for Mother Jones. and co-author of Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders and the People Who Fight Back.

Duration : 0:9:31

Read more about The Librarians Who Battled the Patriot Act – David Goodman

Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Q:To what extent did public and political opinion in the west undermine the impartiality of judicial decision-making during the cold-war era?
—————————————-

USA

In a famous dissent, Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court declared:

‘We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress despised minorities than to let them vent their spleen’ (Dennis v United States U.S. 494 at p. 585 (1951) (U.S.S.C.).

No western democracy has practiced the tolerance exposed [mistake in video, it should read “expoused”] by Justice Douglas-in the above statement, without at some stage censoring unpopular organizations. Douglas was in a minority of two on a US Supreme Court bench which upheld convictions entered against Communist party sympathizers for conspiring to overthrow the US government. (Joseph, P,think it’s “1998” edn., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, ).

In Dennis v United States, above, the US Supreme Court upheld convictions against communist party officials for conspiring to teach or advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Here, the Court considered that the advocacy of the communist doctrine was to be equated with conspiring to forcibly overthrow the US government.

Dennis was decided in 1951, at the height of cold-war tensions between the USSR and the US. Justice Black aligned with Justice Douglas in the minority stating:

‘Public opinion being what it is now, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions, and fears subside, this or some other later court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high place where they belong in a free society.’ (Dennis, supra, at 581).

Justice Black’s statement was realized six years later in Yates v United States 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (U.S.S.C). This time, a differently constituted Supreme Court bench quashed the convictions of 14 Communist Party leaders that had been entered for similar reasons under the same Act.

With the easing of east-west relations, the Court drew a clear distinction between the advocacy of forcible overthrow of government-as an abstract doctrine, and the advocacy of action to achieve that result.

According to legal philosopher Wolfgang Friedman, it was impossible to remove the judgment of the US Supreme Court from the political tensions and public opinions that existed at that time. (W. Friedman, Legal Theory, (4th edn. , 1960, at p.95).

Australia

Australia also expressed abhorrence at communist doctrine during the post-war era. In Burns v Ransley (1949) 79 C.L.R. 101 (H.C.), the Australian High Court upheld a conviction for sedition entered against a communist speaker who, when asked, announced that, in the event of a war, he would fight on the side of the Soviet Union. He was convicted for words he had spoken in reply to a hypothetical question, and not for inciting mutiny or violence.

The following year the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) declared the Australian Communist Party to be a revolutionary organization which jeopardized the defence of the Commonwealth. The statute dissolved the Communist Party and all affiliated organizations declared illegal under the Act.

The fundamental democratic principle of freedom of expression was restored when a majority of the High Court of Australia in Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, declared the Communist Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) to be unconstitutional and beyond the defence powers of the Commonwealth (see also R v Sharky (1949) 79 CLR 121).

New Zealand

During the early 1980s in New Zealand, Priminister Robert Muldoon took exception to the Socialist Unity Party and questioned it’s right to exist in a free and democratic society. However, a government, expounding the rule of law, must demonstrate greater justification for out-lawing a particular group or organization, for reasons other than personal enmity (Joseph, supra, at p.191).

See also New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14 (right to freedom of expression), and related case law; and Human Rights Act 1993, s.21(j)(prohibits discrimination on grounds of political opinion) incorporated, by reference, into s.19 NZBORA; note also- Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007; & see Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981, s.11 (offences involving New Zealand flag)

Duration : 0:4:20

Read more about Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

From House of Lords to Supreme Court

From 31 July 2009, the judicial function of the House of Lords and its role as the final – and highest – appeal court in the UK will end, bringing about a fundamental change to the work and role of the House of Lords.

A new United Kingdom Supreme Court, separating the judicial function from Parliament (those who make the law from those who interpret it in courts), will open in early October 2009 opposite the Houses of Parliament in Parliament Square – formerly the Middlesex Guildhall.

Lord Mance, one of the 12 Law Lords in the House of Lords, outlines the key changes to the judicial role of Parliament.

Find out more:
House of Lords homepage: http://www.parliament.uk/lords
Judicial Work: http://www.parliament.uk/business/judicial_work.cfm

Duration : 0:4:41

Read more about From House of Lords to Supreme Court

Supreme Court stops Reddy brothers’ mining

A setback for Bellary’s mining barons – the Supreme Court has suspended the Reddy brothers’ mining operations in Andhra Pradesh over allegations of encroachment on forest land.

Duration : 0:1:49

Read more about Supreme Court stops Reddy brothers’ mining

“Hank” Skinner: US Supreme Court stays execution

USA – He had just 45 minutes left to live when he was given a stay of execution. The US Supreme Court has once again spared Hank Skinner, citing the many discrepancies in the prosecution’s case against him. Skinner’s lawyers have been appealing for evidence from the crime scene to undergo DNA testing, but so far, the request has always been rejected.

Duration : 0:2:41

Read more about “Hank” Skinner: US Supreme Court stays execution

Judicial Supremacy vs Co-equal Branches, Lecture 2

Join the discussion: http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/

Visiting University of Georgia Law Lecturer and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich argues that the defeat of judicial supremacy and the reestablishment of a constitutional balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are unavoidable if we are going to retain our freedoms and our identity as Americans.

Duration : 0:52:12

Read more about Judicial Supremacy vs Co-equal Branches, Lecture 2

Judge Andrew Napolitano on The Alex Jones Show 1/2: Geithner’s Bankergate & 3rd Party Rising

Alex talks with former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and a political and legal analyst for Fox News Channel, Andrew Napolitano. Judge Napolitano hosts Freedom Watch and is the author of several books, including Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks its Own Laws and The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land.
http://www.judgenap.com/
http://www.infowars.com/

Duration : 0:10:7

Read more about Judge Andrew Napolitano on The Alex Jones Show 1/2: Geithner’s Bankergate & 3rd Party Rising

US ends political campaign spending limits

The US supreme court has issued a landmark ruling that will change the way US election campaigns are financed.

By a 5 to 4 vote, the court lifted long-standing limits on corporate spending in political campaigns, opening the door for private entities to flood the political marketplace with corporate money.

Al Jazeera’s John Terrett explains why it is likely to have an immediate effect on the upcoming Congressional elections in November.

Duration : 0:2:22

Read more about US ends political campaign spending limits

Justice Thomas On The Court’s Makeup: Supreme Court Week

An excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ interview for C-SPAN’s Supreme Court Week is shown during Q&A, featuring Supreme Court Week executive producer Mark Farkas. In this excerpt, Justice Thomas describes the “heavily northeastern … mentality” of the Supreme Court Justices. “Eight of the nine of us are from Ivy League schools. This Court doesnt represent all regions of the country.” More on C-SPAN’s Supreme Court Week here: http://supremecourt.c-span.org/

Duration : 0:2:22

Read more about Justice Thomas On The Court’s Makeup: Supreme Court Week

MSNBC Countdown : FISA : Supreme Court says No

MSNBC
Countdown
Keith Olbermann

2008-02-19
Supreme Court says no to FISA

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to turn down the ACLU’s legal challenge to President Bush’s domestic spying program.

Source
http://msnbc.com

***

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical & electronic surveillance & collection of “foreign intelligence information” between or among “foreign powers” on territory under United States control.

FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. 1801–1811, 1821–29, 1841–46, and 1861–62.

The subchapters of FISA provide for:

– Electronic Surveillance
– Physical Searches
– Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
– Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes

The act created a court which meets in secret, & approves or denies requests for search warrants.
Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported.

In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.
This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants in 2006.
Only 5 warrants have been rejected since the court first met in 1979.

The Act was amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.

An overhaul of the bill, the Protect America Act of 2007 was signed into law on 2007-08-05.

Source
http://wikipedia.org

***

VoteToImpeach
http://impeachbush.org
http://impeachcheney.org

***

Ron Paul 2008

Hope for America
http://RonPaul2008.Com

The Taxpayers Best Friend
http://RonPaulForCongress.Com

Remember Remember, Vote Paul in November

Duration : 0:5:13

Read more about MSNBC Countdown : FISA : Supreme Court says No