The U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. Human Rights Resolution, which establishes precedent for treating all of us with dignity. The extension of rights to good lives to all of us would give more stability to the society as a whole.

Panelists made a plea to all of us who care to keep up the pressure, and lend support to our world by – most especially – continuing to vote for leaders who keep striving to bring rights into actual existence over years of resistance.

We live in the wealthiest most privileged nation on the planet. One would think that out of our abundance a spirit of generosity would erupt and roll like a ever flowing stream. On the contrary, if these polls have any validity it appears we have become a country of fearful, shriveled, stingy, mean people.

In a frenzy of xenophobia the Radical Republican has been talking up the idea of changing the 14th Amendment or so-called birthright citizenship. The argument is that there are thousands and thousands of late term unauthorized immigrants coming here to have their children. The children born here are citizens and this is either a) a plan for the parents to get to stay in the United States or b) future terrorist agents (this last one is so risible that only in the age of Faux News and Talk Radio could it get any play at all).

As with the 51Park Islamic Community Center they see this as a good wedge issue to whip up their fear addicted base and get them out the polls. This might seem like a new tactic, but like all Radical Republican ideas it is just a case of everything old is new again. The Congress has had hearings on the issue, way back in the mists of time, in 1995 and 1997, just after Radical Republicans had taken control of the Congress. Scott Wong over at Politico brought this to light.

"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"

When considering the recent uproar over the Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution, this is the section that is under fire by many Republicans:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Okay, here is where I ask the obvious question. If being born here doesn’t make you a citizen, what does?

News media need to carefully get the facts right about allegations of “anchor babies” and put the allegations in context, to avoid yet another wave of hysteria over a nonexistent threat.

Discussion of Rand Paul as Not Quite Ready for Prime Time

Today the Supreme Court is hearing an important gun control case. It is McDonald v Chicago. This is the companion law suit to 2008’s Heller v District of Columbia. In Heller the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 found that the 2nd Amendment provided an individual right to bare arms. The Justices based some of their thinking on the premise that individuals have a right to protect themselves in their homes and owning a hand gun is part of that right.

In McDonald, there is exactly the same set of circumstances. The reason this case is before the Court is that the District of Columbia is a Federal enclave, like an army fort or an embassy. The question before the Court today is does this right that they found in DC extend to the States as well. Since all five of the Justices that voted in favor of the individual right in Heller are still on the bench, it is all but a forgone conclusion that they will extend this right by virtue of due process to the States.

The lawyer for the gun rights advocates argued that it should be the 14th Amendment “protections or immunities” clause that extends this individual right to the states. This did not get a warm reception from any of the Justices and with good reason. The part of the 14th Amendment which reads :

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

is called the “protections and immunities” clause. It was written after the end of the Civil War and was intended to help bring the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights down to the State level (this was needed because of a Supreme Court decision that held that the Bill of Rights only applied at the Federal level). It has hardly been used as the “equal protection” clause has been the more standard method of extending Federal rights into the states.

The “protections and immunities” clause has basically been dormant since the Slaughter House decision. Going back and overturning that decision gave even Justice Scalia some pause. From SCOTUSblog’s very good analysis:

The first argument to collapse as the hearing unfolded was the plea by the lawyer for gun rights advocates, Alan Gura of Alexandria, VA, that the Court should “incorporate” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment through the “privileges or immunities” clause. In the first comment from the bench after Gura had barely opened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., noted that the Court had essentially scuttled that argument with its ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases in 1873. And within a few minutes, Justice Antonin Scalia — the author of the Heller opinion and the Court’s most fervent gun enthusiast — was sarcastically dismissing the “privileges or immunities” argument.

“Why,” Scalia asked Gura, “are you asking us to overrule 140 years of prior law….unless you are bucking for a place on some law school faculty.” The Justice said the “privileges or immunities” argument was “the darling of the professorate” but wondered why Gura would “undertake that burden.” And Scalia noted that the “due process” clause — an open-ended provision that he has strongly attacked on other occasions– was available as the vehicle for incorporation, and added: “Even I have acquisced in that.” Gura somewhat meekly said “we would be extremely happy:” if the Court used the “due process” clause to extend the Second Amendment’s reach.

Lets kick this off by giving credit where credit is due, Teddy Parteridge is doing a fabulous job of live blogging the Prop 8 trial. Without him we would have to be satisfied with the 30 snippets on the traditional media broadcasts. If you have ever tried to live blog anything you know just how hard what he is doing is. Teddy you rock!

Things are looking moderately good at the Prop 8 trial. Right now, the plaintiffs (the gay couples who want to be able to marry) are presenting their case so it is expected. We have had the very emotional testimony from the plaintiffs about what being denied this right that every heterosexual citizen takes for granted means.