Did you know there is a law about the National Anthem? Healthcare is not a right and today we will prove it. Lots more on today’s KrisAnne Hall Show. Listen to this edition of the KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube
The post National Anthem Rights & Benefits appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.
The following post is excerpted from the script for Nullify: Season 1. Watch all the videos from this series at this link – and Become a member here to support the TAC.
In his famous 1830s “Notes on Nullification,” James Madison railed against a specific nullification proposal from South Carolina claiming the power of a single state to legally overturn any congressional act. Drafted by John C. Calhoun, the proposal also claimed that the federal government would immediately have to obey a single state declaring a federal act unconstitutional, and could only stop this process by getting 3/4 of the states to overturn the action of the nullifying state.
Mainstream conservative and liberal “experts” take this out of context, and intentionally misconstrue Madison’s opposition to what he called “the doctrine of South Carolina.”
At the same time, they conveniently forget to mention Madison’s other statement in support of nullification in that same document.
He wrote, “the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.”
Further proving that Madison was rejecting the specific doctrine of South Carolina and not nullification in general, he added, “It cannot be supposed for a moment that Mr. Jefferson would not revolt at the doctrine of South Carolina.”
On the other hand, the phrase “all admit” couldn’t be more clear. James Madison indeed considered nullification a remedy against “insupportable oppression”
TAC memberships help us produce more educational tools like this. Members can download this video and read the full transcript here.
“When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; liberty, sir, was then the primary object.”
-Patrick Henry (1788)
FOLLOW TAC:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tenthamendment
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
Rights vs. Benefits – By KrisAnne Hall, JD Some Americans seem to be confused about the difference between Rights and Benefits. Influenced in part by manipulative politicians and pundits, this confusion has clouded the minds of the unsuspecting. Here is a typical example of this confusion on Twitter: How many people have you heard proclaim […]
The post Rights vs. Benefits appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.
Recently, Laura Donahue, a professor at Georgetown Law and an expert on digital privacy, came to the Originalism Center at the University of San Diego to talk about her recent article, “The Original Fourth Amendment.” The article is a long one, nearly 150 pages long in a law journal, and it covers the development of search and seizure law through English, Colonial and American history.
One of the messages that comes across is the familiar one that the Americans were Whigs, who took one strand of English thought that was protective of liberty, and wrote it into the Constitution. (Another area where some have argued this was true was the First Amendment.)
One interesting question is the meaning of the famous language in the Amendment prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Many people who reject originalism or embrace a nonconstraining originalism argue that this language is inherently vague or a delegation to the future. In essence, their argument is that unreasonable could mean a variety of things and therefore judges should decide and give it content based on their view of what would be beneficial.
But Donahue disputes this argument. She argues that “unreasonable” means “against the reason of the common law.” In other words, the Fourth Amendment incorporates the principles of the common law and therefore those principles should be followed. Unreasonable does not involve vague language or a delegation to judges. It has a specific meaning that follows the common law in this area.
Donahue presents some significant evidence for her conclusion. It is significant to note, however, that Donahue’s argument only works if one accepts the view that the Constitution is written in the language of the law — that is, that the Constitution uses terms that have legal meanings. If the Constitution is written in ordinary language, then unfamiliar legal terms could not be found in the document.
Donahue’s interpretation employs legal language in two ways. First, in ordinary language, the term “unreasonable” would not normally be understood as referring to the reason of the common law. Donahue cites to Johnson’s dictionary, who does not refer to the reason of the common law. It is only legal works as well as a legal dictionary that make that reference.
Second, an ordinary language reader would not understand the meaning of the term “unreasonable” even if they knew it referred to “against the reason of the common law.” To understand what that term meant, one would have to be familiar with the common law.
I should hasten to add that I do not regard this feature of Donahue’s argument as a defect. As I have noted before, John McGinnis and I have argued that the Constitution is written in the language of the law and therefore its terms must be understood to include legal terms. I believe that Donahue’s argument is a good example of how we can best understand the Constitution by reference to legal language.
A press release about the lawsuit filed against me by the city of Lexington, Ky., relating to an open records request I filed seeking information on surveillance generated a ton of local media coverage, including an appearance on Kruser and Krew, the afternoon-drive show on WVLK AM.
Kruser and I talked about the city’s efforts to hide information about its surveillance cameras. I started off the interview with a bang.
“You know what’s really ironic about this? I’m trying to get information about surveillance whenever you do that, people will give you the, ‘Well if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to fear.’ And yet, I’ve got stacks of redacted documents and a lawsuit, and I’m wondering what Lexington’s got to hide and what they’ve got to fear.”
Kruser tried to push me a bit, arguing that maybe the police were justified in hiding some information about their surveillance programs. I think I pretty much obliterated that argument.
If you’ve been following our Activism 101 Podcast, you know that I’ve been involved in local activism taking on the surveillance state in my hometown of Lexington, Ky. Well, my efforts have gotten me sued!
The good thing about getting sued is it creates a lot of media buzz – including spots on the local news.
My interview with the local CBS affiliate was particularly good. It gives a good overview of the surveillance issue in Lexington. The reporter hit all the major points, and my sound bites came out solid. The only negative was my TAC pin was crooked.
WATCH IT:
Local action is a powerful way to address the federal surveillance state. We need more people pushing their cities and counties like this!
