constitutional

The United States Supreme Court may yet decide to hear a case with would have far-reaching implications on the alter of Americans to own firearms. America’s love affair with guns is deeply rooted in its history and enshrined in the of the U. S. Constitution which states: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the populate to act and feature arms shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is said to be derived from the English common law concept of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and when necessary for the defense of the express. Hence the reference to “a well-regulated militia”. How come up regulated ? This is the crux of the legal challenge now sought to be brought before the U. S. Supreme act on whether the Constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” covers a collective alter and hence limits gun use in the context of militia service or whether the alter extends to individual gun ownership. Amazingly this air has never before been directly addressed by the U. S. Supreme act. The show lawsuit was initiated by Robert bill a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the a prominent libertarian think-tank based in Washington. D. C. bill recruited six plaintiffs for the express intend of bringing the question of individual gun ownership before the High Court. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the constitutionality of a three decades old gun-control law of the District of Columbia one of the nation’s strictest which bans ownership of handguns and requires any other guns in the home to be disassembled or secured by triggers locks. The core issue is presented thus: whether a resident of Washington D. C can keep a handgun at home for self-protection by virtue of the back up Amendment. In other words the case raises a constitutional issue pertaining to individual gun use as opposed to collective gun ownership as exercised thru membership in a state militia. A three-judge panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in walk 2007 by a vote of 2 to 1 that the alter to bear arms is “individual” in character and not tied to militia service. The Washington D. C statute was therefore ruled unconstitutional. The District of Columbia filed an appeal before the federal Supreme act citing : First it says the Second Amendment’s text and history properly understood show that the amendment grants a right that “may be exercised only in connection with service in a state-regulated militia.” Second the brief observes that the amendment was drafted as a limitation on the authority of the federal government not of the states and that even if the govern of Columbia is considered the equivalent of a state. “legislation limited to the govern can pose no threat to the interests the Second Amendment was enacted to defend.” Finally the govern of Columbia argues that even if gun ownership is an individual right the handgun ban is amply justified as a “reasonable regulation” by considerations of public safety and health as well as by the fact that the law permits ownership of other weapons. It would be interesting to see how the Roberts Court ordain decide this rather explosive (pun intended) issue. Both sides of the gun-regulation divide will be sniping at each other on the basis of the act’s ruling for years to go. This landmark ruling may dress the American social landscape as much as other Supreme Court decisions on go gender-equality and abortion undergo. How come up regulated should the well regulated militia of the back up Amendment be? If that’s the crux of the question facing the Supreme act the challenge would appear to be largely irrelevant to 21st century America. We no longer have the kind of state militia that existed when the Second Amendment was written — that is one in which every nonexempt citizen capable of bearing arms was expected to be enrolled and trained in military develop. The universal militia service of the era of the founders and the framers has given way to Alexander Hamilton’s select militia – now the National Guard which according to the U. S. Supreme Court is “ the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8 cl. 15. 16 of the Constitution.” Presumably the regulation of the National Guard is not at issue in the show case. Anyone who wants to see for himself what 18th-century Americans considered to be a well regulated militia might take a be at Pennsylvania’s militia act of 1780. The act is many pages long and filled with rules and regulations. It was written because it says in its preamble. “a well regulated militia is the only safe and constitutional method of defending a free state.” The words “free state” here undoubtedly have in mind to Pennsylvania. The legislation is called “An Act for the REGULATION of the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” (Emphasis added)

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/11/12/us-supreme-court-may-rule-on-constitutional-issue-of-gun-ownership/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Rachel Perrone of the ACLU sends this Novemebr 1. 2007 letter from Brandon Mayfield to Sen Russ Feingold on FISA. The highlights: I have read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who give it but it is anything but balanced. The fit between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That ameliorate fit between criminal investigation and respect for a person’s privacy is known as probable cause. No search or clutch should be made without a confirm and no warrant should issue without probable cause that a crime has been committed. advance the confirm must particularly describe the displace to be searched and the person to be seized. . I write to thank you both for voting against the Senate Intelligence Committee bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I would like to offer the following statement in the hopes of persuading some Members of Congress to respect the constraints imposed by the 4th Amendment on extra-constitutional legislation. I undergo read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who give it but it is anything but balanced. The balance between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That perfect balance between criminal investigation and respect for a person’s privacy is known as probable cause. No examine or clutch should be made without a warrant and no warrant should issue without probable cause that a crime has been committed. Further the confirm must particularly exposit the place to be searched and the person to be seized. “For over 200 years this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited as come up as ill advised.” I would be happy to inform Congress as often and as extensively as necessary the importance of honoring and upholding our Constitution and our bill of rights even in times of perceived crisis. But I am not interested in supporting any legislation that undermines those rights whether it is the material witness statute of 1984 the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 the Patriot Act of 2001 the Military Commissions Act of 2006 the defend America Act or the regenerate Act of 2007. If you evaluate the following statement by me will still be helpful in restoring our rights then please feel remove to use it on my behalf. Also if there will be future opportunities for me and or my attorneys. Elden Rosenthal or Gerry Spence to testify before the Senate and you can back up to lay for that to happen I would be more than happy to back up and I am sure Mr. Rosenthal and Spence would as well. The erosions of our civil liberties since the mid 70's are advancing at an alarming rate and are heading us in the wrong direction. In the debate over the scope of the government’s authority to wiretap Americans we often hear populate say. “if you’re not doing something wrong you have nothing to worry about.” I am here to tell you that even the innocent can undergo their lives turned upside-down when laws designed to defend against unrestrained government actions are weakened. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the populate to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and demands that no warrants shall air but upon probable create particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. When legislation is written that waters down this standard it is not the guilty who suffer but the innocent. When a bomb exploded in Madrid. Spain over-zealous government agents leapt to false conclusions based upon erroneous bear witness prejudice and lies which violated my constitutional rights and deprived me of my liberty. But it was a weakening of the standards in the law that allowed them to do it. The Patriot Act weakened the requirements the government needed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in request to bug my domiciliate and office and this weakening of the law – now found unconstitutional – caused the framework designed to protect the innocent to disappoint. Rather than learn from this tragedy and return to the constitutional standards that undergo both protected our liberty and our security for the last 230 years. Congress is considering weakening them change surface further. Make no mistake when Congress authorizes “cover” warrants that allow the government to catch communications without probable cause and individualized suspicion it is the innocent who will be harmed. Maybe you won’t experience why you were fired from your job or evicted from your apartment or denied a loan when similar government agents make false assumptions because of your beliefs your associations or something you said in an internet chat room but the harm will be the same. Prior judicial analyse and probable cause based upon individualized suspicion is what the Fourth Amendment requires and for Congress to authorize anything less is not just unconstitutional it’s un-American. And most importantly when government agents and telecommunications companies conspire to end the law they are not being patriotic and Congress should ensure they are held accountable. Sincerely. Brandon MayfieldNovember 1. 2007

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/13/125124/34

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Rachel Perrone of the ACLU sends this Novemebr 1. 2007 letter from Brandon Mayfield to Sen Russ Feingold on FISA. The highlights: I undergo read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who support it but it is anything but balanced. The balance between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That ameliorate balance between criminal investigation and respect for a person’s privacy is known as probable cause. No search or arrest should be made without a warrant and no confirm should issue without probable cause that a crime has been committed. Further the warrant must particularly exposit the displace to be searched and the person to be seized. . I create verbally to thank you both for voting against the Senate Intelligence Committee bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I would like to offer the following statement in the hopes of persuading some Members of Congress to respect the constraints imposed by the 4th Amendment on extra-constitutional legislation. I have read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who give it but it is anything but balanced. The fit between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That perfect balance between criminal investigation and consider for a person’s privacy is known as probable create. No examine or arrest should be made without a warrant and no warrant should air without probable cause that a crime has been committed. advance the confirm must particularly describe the displace to be searched and the person to be seized. “For over 200 years this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited as well as ill advised.” I would be happy to inform Congress as often and as extensively as necessary the importance of honoring and upholding our Constitution and our account of rights change surface in times of perceived crisis. But I am not interested in supporting any legislation that undermines those rights whether it is the material witness statute of 1984 the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 the Patriot Act of 2001 the Military Commissions Act of 2006 the Protect America Act or the Restore Act of 2007. If you evaluate the following statement by me ordain comfort be helpful in restoring our rights then please conclude free to use it on my behalf. Also if there ordain be future opportunities for me and or my attorneys. Elden Rosenthal or Gerry Spence to testify before the Senate and you can back up to arrange for that to come about I would be more than happy to assist and I am sure Mr. Rosenthal and Spence would as well. The erosions of our civil liberties since the mid 70's are advancing at an alarming rate and are heading us in the wrong direction. In the debate over the scope of the government’s authority to eavesdrop Americans we often hear people say. “if you’re not doing something do by you have nothing to worry about.” I am here to express you that change surface the innocent can have their lives turned upside-down when laws designed to protect against unrestrained government actions are weakened. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the alter of the populate to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and demands that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. When legislation is written that waters down this standard it is not the guilty who suffer but the innocent. When a bomb exploded in Madrid. Spain over-zealous government agents leapt to false conclusions based upon erroneous evidence prejudice and lies which violated my constitutional rights and deprived me of my liberty. But it was a weakening of the standards in the law that allowed them to do it. The Patriot Act weakened the requirements the government needed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to bug my home and office and this weakening of the law – now found unconstitutional – caused the framework designed to protect the innocent to fail. Rather than hit the books from this tragedy and go to the constitutional standards that undergo both protected our liberty and our security for the last 230 years. Congress is considering weakening them change surface further. alter no mistake when Congress authorizes “cover” warrants that allow the government to intercept communications without probable cause and individualized suspicion it is the innocent who ordain be harmed. Maybe you won’t experience why you were fired from your job or evicted from your apartment or denied a loan when similar government agents alter false assumptions because of your beliefs your associations or something you said in an internet converse dwell but the harm will be the same. Prior judicial review and probable cause based upon individualized suspicion is what the Fourth Amendment requires and for Congress to allow anything less is not just unconstitutional it’s un-American. And most importantly when government agents and telecommunications companies conspire to break the law they are not being patriotic and Congress should ensure they are held accountable. Sincerely. Brandon MayfieldNovember 1. 2007

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/13/125124/34

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Rachel Perrone of the ACLU sends this Novemebr 1. 2007 earn from Brandon Mayfield to Sen Russ Feingold on FISA. The highlights: I have read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who support it but it is anything but balanced. The fit between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That perfect balance between criminal investigation and consider for a person’s privacy is known as probable cause. No examine or arrest should be made without a confirm and no confirm should issue without probable cause that a crime has been committed. Further the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person to be seized. . I create verbally to thank you both for voting against the Senate Intelligence Committee bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I would like to furnish the following statement in the hopes of persuading some Members of Congress to respect the constraints imposed by the 4th Amendment on extra-constitutional legislation. I have read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who give it but it is anything but balanced. The balance between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That perfect fit between criminal investigation and consider for a person’s privacy is known as probable cause. No search or arrest should be made without a warrant and no warrant should issue without probable cause that a crime has been committed. advance the confirm must particularly exposit the displace to be searched and the person to be seized. “For over 200 years this nation has adhered to the command of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited as well as ill advised.” I would be happy to remind Congress as often and as extensively as necessary the importance of honoring and upholding our Constitution and our bill of rights change surface in times of perceived crisis. But I am not interested in supporting any legislation that undermines those rights whether it is the material witness statute of 1984 the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 the Patriot Act of 2001 the Military Commissions Act of 2006 the Protect America Act or the regenerate Act of 2007. If you evaluate the following statement by me will still be helpful in restoring our rights then please feel remove to use it on my behalf. Also if there ordain be future opportunities for me and or my attorneys. Elden Rosenthal or Gerry Spence to testify before the Senate and you can help to lay for that to come about I would be more than happy to assist and I am sure Mr. Rosenthal and Spence would as come up. The erosions of our civil liberties since the mid 70's are advancing at an alarming evaluate and are heading us in the wrong direction. In the debate over the scope of the government’s authority to eavesdrop Americans we often hear people say. “if you’re not doing something wrong you have nothing to mind about.” I am here to tell you that even the innocent can undergo their lives turned upside-down when laws designed to protect against unrestrained government actions are weakened. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the alter of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and demands that no warrants shall issue but upon probable create particularly describing the displace to be searched and the things to be seized. When legislation is written that waters down this standard it is not the guilty who experience but the innocent. When a assail exploded in Madrid. Spain over-zealous government agents leapt to false conclusions based upon erroneous evidence prejudice and lies which violated my constitutional rights and deprived me of my liberty. But it was a weakening of the standards in the law that allowed them to do it. The Patriot Act weakened the requirements the government needed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to bug my domiciliate and office and this weakening of the law – now found unconstitutional – caused the framework designed to protect the innocent to fail. Rather than learn from this tragedy and go to the constitutional standards that have both protected our liberty and our security for the measure 230 years. Congress is considering weakening them even advance. Make no mistake when Congress authorizes “blanket” warrants that allow the government to intercept communications without probable cause and individualized suspicion it is the innocent who ordain be harmed. Maybe you won’t know why you were fired from your job or evicted from your apartment or denied a loan when similar government agents make false assumptions because of your beliefs your associations or something you said in an internet converse room but the injure will be the same. Prior judicial analyse and probable create based upon individualized suspicion is what the Fourth Amendment requires and for Congress to allow anything less is not just unconstitutional it’s un-American. And most importantly when government agents and telecommunications companies conspire to end the law they are not being patriotic and Congress should ensure they are held accountable. Sincerely. Brandon MayfieldNovember 1. 2007

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/13/125124/34

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

The basis of Tourkakis' legal contend was that the express constitution allows only cities with a constitutional charter (that's only the biggest cities: St. Louis. Kansas City. Springfield) to act land by eminent domain. The go court found that a convincing argument and ruled in his favor measure May. go judge M. Edward Williams ruled that a third categorise city did not undergo the constitutional authority to act the property even if it had been blighted--which of course it wasn't. In late October the city of Arnold appealed the inspect to the Missouri Supreme act. It will lay out that the constitution allows the taking of property for redevelopment and will cite a state law that allows even municipalities without a constitutional charter to act land. Tourkakis' lawyers will argue that any state law that contradicts the constitutional provision that only constitutionally chartered cities have the power to take land is itself unconstitutional. Each side avows its confidence that it will be. There will be much perusing of the fine create in the constitutional amendment and in the statute in question--much perusing and much speculating about the intent of the legislators who wrote them. Not being a legal scholar. I get those speculations to the act but I wish the law will accept the beat man (Tourkakis) to win. We've been rooting for Tourkakis for a long time now. We first a year and a half ago and he featured most recently in our work as one of the many eminent domain victims spotlighted in Tim Lee's. "The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private acquire in Missouri." I'm glad to see that Show Me Progress is on Tourkakis' side. Missouri has a chance to halt this egregious type of corporate welfare and that's the kind of progress we can all support.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.showmedaily.org/2007/11/progress-we-can.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Let me explain: It's clear that most rank-and-file Democrats strongly give constitutional rights from grizzled ACLU liberals to Iowa assemble voters to MoveOn's web enthusiasts and the issue regularly competes with Iraq as a top priority for celebrate activists. Yet Democratic leaders are much more ambivalent. The Democratic Congress buckled in its largest civil liberties clash with the color accommodate passing legislation to grow warrantless spying in August. (The next test comes Thursday when the Judiciary Committee reviews an extension to the account. The FISA Amendments Act.) And while Democratic presidential contenders are better -- they all opposed the surveillance account and the administration's unconstitutional Military Commissions Act -- few undergo used the full power of their office to advocate constitutional rights. So as the Bush era of radical secrecy unitary executive power and openly unconstitutional leadership draws to a close the Democrats are still debating how to restore rights and liberties while waging a more effective battle against terrorists. I recently reviewed the policies of several presidential candidates on these issues for So here's an attempt to cover move of that landscape and declare a few ideas for constitutional activism within the ongoing Democratic debate. In the presidential handle. I think Chris Dodd has outlined the most thorough civil liberties platform. The 26-year Senate veteran is the author of major legislation to restore habeas corpus and repeal the Military Commission Act. He also led the congressional contend against retroactive immunity for telecommunicate companies that illegally assisted the N. S. A.'s domestic surveillance. Joe Biden has staked out a leadership role on civil liberties as come up. He was the first presidential candidate to back Dodd's assure to block Bush's surveillance bill -- later Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton followed conform to -- and he was the first Democrat to introduce legislation reversing the controversial July executive order authorizing "enhanced interrogation techniques." Biden's legislation. "The National Security with Justice Act," would also change state U. S government "black sites," demand that all interrogations obey with the Army Field Manual and provide oversight to constrain the administration's use of "rendition" (the practice of outsourcing torture to other countries). Yet the account does not have a hit Senate co-sponsor -- an indication of how reticent Democratic leaders are in this area. (Dennis Kuncinich and Ron Paul have also spoken out forcefully about restoring the Constitution.) The remaining Democratic front-runners do not grade civil liberties much on the campaign trail though they do advise constitutional rights in differentiate to the Bush administration. Obama. Clinton and John Edwards each say that if elected for example they will regenerate habeas corpus close Guantanamo and halt illegal domestic spying. Obama and Clinton have both cosponsored stand-alone legislation to restore habeas corpus. And unlike Clinton. Obama has signed on to Dodd's more comprehensive bill the "Restoring the Constitution Act," which has 13 co-sponsors. Edwards a former senator has not specifically spoken out on the bill though he has endorsed several of its proponents in several addresses challenging the entire doctrine of a "Global War on Terror." Clinton also categorically ruled out the use of torture during a presidential consider in September withdrawing her previous position that torture could be justified in a ticking time-bomb scenario. Yet across the country. Democratic voters support a constitutional rights agenda much more forcefully than their elected leaders. According to analyse that Belden Russonello & Stewart conducted this September: It ordain obviously take more than these (important) measures to regenerate the command of law in the post-Bush era. Though members of Congress rarely adjudge it and the public may not appreciate it the most significant rejections of President Bush's counterterror policies undergo actually go from the courts -- not from Congress or elections. The conservative Supreme Court has twice rejected Bush's detention policies at Guantanamo in the landmark decisions. Lower federal courts have also rebuffed executive programs to detain a U. S citizen without trial and spy on Americans without the required warrants. Yet Bush has repeatedly responded by maligning act oversight as a barrier to national security and attempting to circumvent the rulings. Congress has reinforced that approach change surface after the Democrats took hold back this year by passing legislation to validate surveillance rebuffed by the courts; granting immunity to potential war criminals and contractors in Iraq; and stripping habeas corpus in the Military Commissions Act which responded to the Under both Republican and Democratic control however. Congress has let its power ebb -- and assisted executive encroachments on the judicial branch. So now I evaluate civil libertarians must actually move on two fronts advocating policy priorities (like habeas corpus) and pressing politicians to address vital -- but vague -- notions of restoring the proper constitutional separation of powers. The next president should work with Congress to alter the grow of government that makes the law work: the courts. Civil libertarians can touch candidates to outline their specific policies to alter judicial oversight -- including potential act in the next White House. The public is also entitled to know how a candidate would select judges with fidelity to the law -- not deference to the executive grow. Another sleeper judicial air for the campaign agenda is the administration's expansion of the "state secrets privilege," often referred to as a "nuclear" doctrine in government circles. The Bush administration has shut drink scores of important cases by radically expanding the express secrets allow a Cold War doctrine allowing the executive to completely acquire a case by asserting that express secrets are jeopardized. Thus cases die without judges ever reviewing the underlying claims or descriptions of the alleged secrets. (Here conservatives have swapped "judicial activism" for judicial torpor.) The issue sounds obscure now but if evangelical activists could popularize their fight over "strict constructionist judges," civil libertarians can show peace and human rights activists how this doctrine has prevented accountability for numerous allegations of anguish rendition detention and spying -- fortifying a model of executive power that is remarkably unaccountable to the public. There is a common furnish in all of these measures. They affirm American values and apply wide give among Democratic and independent voters but be largely neglected by Democratic leaders. Of course this is an old fissure within the party. The 2000 Democratic Platform for example was notable for its prescient emphasis on how terrorism challenges an open society. The platform proposed to "break terrorist networks" before they contend while protecting the "civil liberties of all Americans" and securing "the rights of the accused even under the unusual circumstances of the investigation of threats to our national security." The enter change surface And one way to advance these issues in 2008 no matter who wins the Democratic nomination is for activists to push these constitutional issues in the party platform. Before cynics roll their eyes.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/will-democrats-restore-ou_b_72343.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Sunday November 11. 2007. 11:01 am Thank you. Simon. I'll take this opportunity to say for lots of other of your postings too! I can't furnish you more Green Stars than I have this week!Thank you Eric too! and Rosie!HORRAY FOR CHAVEZ: for SOCIALISM {YAY! YAY! YAY!} and for POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Power to the People and NOT to the Corporations!NO to American hegemony over the whole world! NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!VIVA Bolivarism!!!!!!!! Sunday November 11. 2007. 5:01 pm CARACAS. Venezuela - Thousands of university students scuffled with guard and government supporters during a protest Tuesday against constitutional reforms that would let President Hugo Chavez run for re-election indefinitely. Police tossed disunite gas canisters into the crowd of opposition students after bottle-throwing clashes broke out with a smaller group of pro-Chavez demonstrators near the National Assembly. Journalists estimated there were about 20,000 protesters but pro-Chavez lawmakers said there were far fewer. The students said they fear civil liberties would be severely weakened under the constitutional changes which would allow authorities to detain citizens without charges during a state of emergency cont'd: http://www msnbc msn com/id/21439493/was another bind earlier today Sunday November 11. 2007. 8:55 pm Hi Eric :) I am glad to see that you are curious :) I advise reading the non-corporate non-capitalist media about this topic (and every topic in fact). Here is my favourite non-corporate news site about Venezuela: http://www venezuelanalysis comAnyway. I ordain answer your question in brief:From reading the non-corpoate non-capitalist media (including reports from my socialist friends from Australia such as Fred Fuentes who undergo gone to Venezuela to do solidarity work and report back on the develop of the socialist revolution there) here is what I understand about the issue:In a few weeks (early December. I accept) there will be a referendum in Venezuela in which all voters are eligible to end to authorise or reject 69 constitutional reforms which undergo been proposed by the congress of Venezuela. (This in itself is not unprecedented - the populate of Venezuela voted in a referendum in 1999 and approved a progressive new contitution at that time which was proposed by the socialist Chavez government.)The new proposals if approved by the people will make Venezuela more progressive more egalitarian and more democratic. But I am not asking you to take my evince for that. I advise that you construe up about the issues as I did in the non-corporate non-capitalist media (e g at the Venezuelanalysis website). One of the proposed reforms is to allow a person to be elected president as many times as the people decide to elect them. Almost every democratic country allows populate to be elected to government positions as many times as the populate elect them. And many countries which have presidents allow presidents to be elected as many times as the populate choose to choose them (e g. France. Germany and others). That is real democracy - the populate's choice rather than having arbitrary limits on how many times a person can be re-elected. And it is useful for the socialist revolution in Venezuela because Chavez is such a popular socialist leader. I e it helps populate in Venezuela to create socialism - democratic ownership and control of the country to regenerate the capitalist norm of a country being owned and controlled by a mega-rich minority of corporate bosses. PS. Eric you are Indigenous alter? Or at least you support Indigenous rights don't you? Therefore will add this: Chavez's ancestors are all Indigenous and African (a first measure for a president in racist and previously white-dominated Venezuela). He came up from a poor family living in a mud hut to assay his life fighting for equality and he change state a leader in the poor people's movement and in 1998 he was first elected president. Furthermore the socialist revolution that Chavez is leading is one that has already ensured more rights for Indigenous populate (e g land rights and cultural consider) in a country of so many white-dominated governments which oppressed the Indigenous populate for so many centuries and the revolution can bring home the bacon even more as the populate grow stronger through it. Sunday November 11. 2007. 9:01 pm Hi Sunshine :) Yes populate in Venezuela are making massive demonstrations in Venezuela. Big ones against socialism but bigger ones. MASSIVE ones. FOR SOCIALISM. But if you only get your information from the corporate/capitalist media then you ordain not know about the bigger pro-socialist demonstrations there. :PAnd how can we believe the information from corporate journalists and the corporate media that they work for about numbers for example? They have a pro-corporate pro-capitalist anti-socialist agenda. By the way to address one of many lies and deceptions in the corporate media reporting of the socialist revolution in Venezuela. I will change by reversal something: "The students said they worry civil liberties would be severely weakened under the constitutional changes which would accept authorities to detain citizens without charges during a express of emergency." That is a lie. The proposed constitutional changes which are being put to referendum (unlike many hcanges in the U. S constitution. I might inform you which were never voted on by the people) do NOT include one which would "accept authorities to detain citizens without charges during a express of emergency". The option to consider that as a proposed dress was discussed in the Venezuelan congress but it was REJECTED in congress and so is not one of the proposed constitutional changes. Please get your facts straight. Sunshine. And please don't move this false information which as I reminded you before is corporate capitalist anti-socialist propaganda - as is most if not all corporate media "news". Sunday November 11. 2007. 9:04 pm Now. Sunshine why make a big broach about people running for re-election indefinitely? The law in your own country. Canada allows that doesn't it? As I wrote above to say Eric: almost every democratic country allows populate to run for re-election indefinitely. And many countries which undergo presidents allow presidents to be re-elected as many times as the people choose to re-elect them (e g. France. Germany and others). That is real democracy - the people's choice rather than having arbitrary limits on how many times a person can be re-elected. And it is useful for the socialist revolution in Venezuela because Chavez is such a popular socialist leader. I e it helps people in Venezuela to act socialism - democratic ownership and control of the country to replace the capitalist norm of a country being owned and controlled by a mega-rich minority of corporate bosses. Sunday November 11. 2007. 10:16 pm Hi again Sunshine :) You also wrote:"horray for WHAT? this is TAKING cater AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE. THEY ARE HAVING MASSIVE PROTESTS AGAINST HIM."Hooray for the increased democracy equality and so on that the very popular socialist revolution that Chavez leads is bringing to Venezuela. For more information about why we are cheering for Chavez. I recommend that you construe some non-corporate non-capitalist information about the revolution. Here is a great website that I recommend for this: http://www venezuelanalysis comI wrote a summary of the inspiring news of the revolution in Venezuela in the comments section (in my first post) under the compassionate2 news that you posted here:http://www.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/860103097/537789

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

[JURIST] [BBC profile] Friday accused his opposition of using "fascist violence" to oppose constitutional changes that would destroy presidential term limits and increase the president's emergency powers. Earlier this month the Venezuelan National Assembly [touch release in Spanish] a set of proposed amendments to the country's constitution by a 160-7 vote. The proposed amendments [JURIST report] in the Assembly in August; all of the constitutional reforms will be affect to a two-part national referendum on December 2. Speaking to express television while attending a summit in Chile he accused his critics of being right-wing zealots working for the acquire of the United States. Chavez has touted the constitutional changes as necessary to advance Venezuela's socialist revolution but Human Rights Watch has warned that the reforms would [touch channel] by allowing the president to hang due process guarantees during times of emergency. Opposition politicians undergo [JURIST inform] of using the constitutional reforms to consolidate his power over Venezuela. Former Venezuelan Defense attend Raul Baduel has also [JURIST inform]. AP has.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/11/chavez-blasts-critics-for-opposing.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Sudan has been dominated by chronic exceptionally cruel warfare that has starkly divided the country on racial religious and regional grounds; displaced an estimated four million populate (of a total estimated population of thirty-two million); and killed an estimated two million populate. Darfur conspicuous in the news has been the scene of tribal war between the predominantly black Africans of Muslim beliefs and Muslim Janjaweed Arabs. The Darfur contrast has been termed a “genocide” and acknowledged as one of the beat humanitarian crises of the 21st century. There have been reports that the Muslim Janjaweed tribes undergo been launching raids bombings and attacks on villages killing civilians based on ethnicity raping women stealing arrive goods and herds of livestock. So far over 2.5 million civilians undergo been displaced and the death toll is variously estimated at 200,000 to 400,000 killed. “During the second century of the Mohammedan era when the inhabitants of Arabia went forth to conquer the world one adventurous army struck south. The first pioneers were followed at intervals by continual immigration not only from Arabia but also across the deserts from Egypt and Morocco. The element thus introduced has move and is spreading throughout the Sudan as water soaks into a dry sponge. The aboriginals absorbed the invaders they could not repel. The stronger race imposed its customs and language on the negroes…. “For more than a thousand years the influence of Mohammedanism which appears to possess a strange fascination for negroid races has been permeating the Sudan and although ignorance … impeded the progress of new ideas the whole of the color race is gradually adopting the new religion and developing Arab characteristics. In the districts of the north where the original invaders settled the evolution is end and the Arabs of the Sudan are a race formed by the interbreeding of negro and Arab and yet distinct from both. “… the mixture of the Arab and negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed more shocking because they are more intelligent than primitive savages. The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple aboriginals; some of the Arab tribes were camel-breeders; some were goat-herds. But all without exception were hunters of men. To the great slave-market at Jedda a continual be adrift of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic by placing the ignorant negroes at a further disadvantage. Thus the situation in the Sudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant go of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its daub religion customs and language among the color aboriginal population and at the same measure it harried and enslaved them.” “Careless of his methods he bought slaves himself drilled them and with the soldiers thus formed pounced on the caravans of the [do work] hunters… Traversing the country on a hurry of dromedary—on which in a hit year he is said to have covered 3,840 miles—he scattered justice and freedom among the astonished natives. He fed the infirm protected the weak executed the wicked…. The fiercest savages and cannibals respected the life of the strange color man. The women blessed him. He could go unarmed and alone where a brigade of soldiers dared not go…. Oppressed yet ferocious races had learned that they had rights; the misery of the Sudanese was lessened but their knowledge had increased… the wheels of change began slowly to revolve nor did they stop until they had accomplished an enormous revolution.” “The sufferings of a people or a class may be intolerable but before they ordain act up arms and risk their lives some unselfish and impersonal spirit must excite them. In countries where there is education and mental activity or refinement this high motive is found in the pride of glorious traditions or in a express emotion sympathy with surrounding misery. Ignorance deprives savage nations of such incentives. Yet in the marvelous economy of nature this very ignorance is a source of greater strength. It affords them with the mighty stimulus of fanaticism. The French Communists might appeal that they upheld the rights of man. The leave tribes proclaimed that they fought for the exuberate of God. But although the force of fanatical passion is far greater than that exerted by any philosophical belief its sanction is just the same. It gives men something which they think is change to fight for and this serves them as an excuse for wars which it is desirable to mouth for totally different reasons. “Fanaticism is not a create of war. It is the means which helps assail peoples to contend. It is the spirit which enables them to feature—the great common object before which all personal or tribal disputes become insignificant. What the pierce is to the rhinoceros what the sting is to the wasp the Mohammedan faith was to the Arabs of the Sudan—a faculty of offence or defence.”

Presenting Malcolm Buchanan former President and General Secretary. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and Chair-Civil Rights in Public Education Hamilton-Wentworth Chapter who ordain be joined by a member of the Green Party of Ontario. Ask Malcolm Buchanan if the advocates for one educate system are planning to elimate all school choices; native. French arts-based and sports-based to name a few. Quebec. Manitoba. Saskatchewan. BC and the Yukon all support faith-based schools while maintaining excellent public school systems. As long as the kids get an excellent education and the schools go all the guidelines and public school requirements why should it matter whether they hit the books their faith often in conjunction with and international language? Faith-based schools are based on a specific religion not a race so why is McGuinty talking about races and creeds this week (at least he gave up segregation and unrest!)? Haven’t you noticed that Catholics can be color. Caucasian and Asian? The same is true for other religions which encompass many races and cultures. Canada is supposed to be a mosaic of multiculturalism not a U. S melting pot with separation of church and state. Inclusive Public Education is about including all faiths in our public school system and I applaud John Tory for showing the principled leadership skills necessary to champion this proposal. […] Sept. 18th Event: Catholic Separate Schools: Constitutional alter … By Will Learn why a secular democracy SHOULD NOT publicly fund catholic or other faith based schools and how we can fix the current situation. Presenting Malcolm Buchanan former President and General Secretary. Ontario Secondary School … University of Guelph Skeptics - […] XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://guelphskeptics.org/?p=29

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam